Guns and money: Calls mount to probe NRA finances
By Alan Berlow
A leading national gun safety group, joined by members of Congress, is calling for investigations of the National Rifle Association’s fundraising practices and finances in response to a News investigation published last week.
The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV) has launched a nationwide petition campaign asking the Federal Election Commission and the Internal Revenue Service to investigate “violations of federal law” by the National Rifle Association.
The petition drive cites the Yahoo News report which disclosed that the NRA had violated multiple provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act, failed to report its political expenditures to the IRS for six consecutive years, and appears to have avoided paying federal taxes.
CSGV spokesman Ladd Everitt called the NRA violations “hugely significant.” Everitt said his goal was to press the two federal agencies responsible for enforcement of tax and election laws to “launch investigations into the NRA’s fraudulent activities immediately.” The CSGV is made up of 48 organizations, among them religious, social justice, political and child welfare groups.
The NRA misled prospective donors by telling them that money was being raised to support the tax-exempt operations of the organization when the money was, in fact, deposited to the account of its political action committee. Federal law — as well as multiple state laws — requires that fundraisers explicitly inform donors who the beneficiary of a contribution will be.
“If donations have been used to support candidates or causes with deception to the donors, there is a likely violation of law,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., a former Connecticut attorney general. “NRA donors deserve to know where their donations are going without any misinformation, and the solicitations described by Yahoo News merit scrutiny.”
Federal law also bars organizations like the NRA from raising funds for their political action committees (PACs) from the general public, and from using publicly accessible websites to finance their PACs. Tax-exempt corporations like the NRA are only allowed to solicit from their members. The NRA violated all of these provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act in soliciting contributions during the 2014 elections.
Responding to the Yahoo News report and the CSGV petition drive, Rep. Mike Thompson, D-Calif., said, “Everyone needs to play by the same set of rules. If the evidence reported is true, the FEC and IRS should conduct a full and thorough investigation into its [the NRA’s] fundraising and reporting activities.” Thompson, the chairman of the House Gun Violence Prevention Task Force, said, “Many Second Amendment supporters and responsible gun owners contribute to the NRA because of the work it does to promote gun safety and support the hunting community. They have a right to know whether their money is going to these causes or to Beltway-NRA political efforts that undermine common-sense laws designed to keep criminals, domestic abusers and the dangerously mentally ill from getting guns.”
Thompson was referring indirectly to the NRA’s support for candidates who backed its successful 2013 campaign to thwart expanded background checks for gun purchases. The measure died in the U.S. Senate.
The CSGV’s petition notes that NRA executives — including Chris Cox, who heads both the NRA lobbying arm, which solicited the donations, and the NRA political action committee, which deposited the funds to its account — had yet to comment on the findings in the Yahoo News report. “They apparently believe they are above the law. They are not, and it’s time to hold them accountable.”
The NRA also failed to respond to a request for comment on the CSGV petition.
Rep. Elizabeth Esty, D-Conn., whose district includes the Sandy Hook Elementary School where 26 children and adults were shot to death in 2012, said her office had heard from advocacy groups about the issues raised in the Yahoo News report. “I join with gun safety advocates in calling for an immediate and thorough investigation,” she said. “The NRA is not above the law.”
The NRA has twice been challenged by the FEC for illegally moving corporate funds to its PAC. In 1983, the NRA signed a consent decree declaring that it would “no longer spend corporate funds in connection with any federal election” and would limit its “partisan communications” to members. Eight years later, in 1991, U.S. District Court Judge Stanley Sporkin held that a $415,000 payment by corporate NRA to the PVF was an “illegal contribution” in violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act. But an appeals court ruled that the FEC as then constituted lacked authority to enforce the law.
Although gun control groups have scored a number of significant victories in the states in recent years, at the national level they are largely playing defense. But representatives of these groups say the campaign finance and tax law violations may provide an opening to rein in the nation’s most powerful gun lobby. Beyond the call for two separate federal investigations, these groups are exploring the possibility of filing complaints with state attorneys general and state election boards. CSGV’s Everitt suggested that individuals and smaller local organizations could play an important role in pressuring state agencies to investigate the NRA. He cited the 2014 case of Sam Bell, a 24-year-old Brown University graduate student who singlehandedly shut down the Rhode Island division of the NRA for several months by filing a complaint with the state Board of Elections. The board eventually imposed a $63,000 fine on the NRA, which admitted it had improperly funneled money to its Rhode Island PAC and filed inaccurate reports with the Rhode Island board.
State election and campaign finance laws vary widely from one state to another, making it difficult to say whether the NRA violations reported at the federal level would provide any cause of action before state election boards. But the NRA’s online fundraising appears to have violated a variety of state laws designed to protect consumers from fraudulent fundraising. In California, to cite just one example, the law declares that a charitable organization “shall not misrepresent … the nature or purpose or beneficiary of a solicitation,” and requires that contributions be deposited to an account “that is solely in the name of the charitable organization on whose behalf the contribution was solicited.” Those procedures were not followed in the cases of solicitations Yahoo News reported. Many legal experts believe that state attorney generals are in the best position to probe the NRA’s fundraising — so more investigations may lie ahead.
April 30, 2015
Robin Williams tunnel
California Assembly votes unanimously to rename famed tunnel after Robin Williams
The California Assembly on Thursday unanimously approved a bill to rename the
Waldo Tunnel after late comedian Robin Williams.
The Waldo Tunnel is a tunnel on U.S. 101 between the Golden Gate Bridge and Sausalito in Marin County. William Waldo was a California politician who ran unsuccessfully for governor in 1853. The tunnel’s archways are painted in rainbow colors, which is why people sometimes call it the "rainbow tunnel."
Williams was a long time resident of Marin. The idea to rename the tunnel started with an online petition that received more than 60,000 signatures.
Greedy Adelson rails... Funny how the rich feel mistreated...
Combative Adelson rails against 'greedy bosses' in entertaining court testimony
Billionaire casino mogul slams executives raking in millions in ‘outrageous’ bonuses and stock options – including those in his own company
By Chris McGreal
No one has ever described Sheldon Adelson as a man happy with the world. Happy billionaires do not spend tens of millions of dollars trying to get Newt Gingrich elected president.
But it took a hearing in a Las Vegas courtroom to lay bare an unexpected target for the casino magnet’s ire along with Adelson’s more regular hostility to the “socialist” Obama, pot smokers and Palestinians.
The word’s eighth-richest man is no fan of other rich people. Or at least the “greedy” executive class raking in millions of dollars with what Adelson called “outrageous” bonuses and stock options that so disgusted supporters of the Occupy movement. High on that list are his own executives.
While testifying on Wednesday in a civil suit rooted in allegations that his casino operation in Macao made improper payments to a Chinese official and had ties to Triad organised crime, Adelson unexpectedly enlightened the court on his feelings about the bonus culture.
Adelson peppered his testimony with references to the hardship of his poor upbringing as the son of east European Jewish immigrants in a one-room tenement in Boston before he became a salesman.
“I worked my whole life, coming from the other side of the tracks,” he said at one point.
“I had to go to summer camp as a beneficiary of charity,” he said at another.
The 81-year-old billionaire reflected on the struggle his parents faced throughout their lives.
“My father didn’t have as much as $100 in his bank account when he died,” he said.
Times changed for Adelson after he turned Las Vegas into a centre for conventions and then branched into overseas gambling. He joined the ranks of the mega-rich – today Forbes estimates he is worth around $36bn – as his casino empire boomed. But he wanted the court to know that he never forgot his roots, which appeared to make him particularly averse to those he regards as having had it too easy, including his own executives.
It was questioning about the contract for the former chief executive of his Macao casino operation, who says he was unfairly dismissed for objecting to payments that could be construed as bribes and for dealings with Triad-linked groups, that set Adelson off.
Steven Jacobs negotiated a deal for millions of dollars in stock options on top of his salary. Adelson was outraged. He said bonuses and stock options were like being paid two or three salaries when one would be perfectly fine.
“You take a man who’s earning half a million dollars, and it adds up to five or six million dollars a year,” he said.
Adelson was particularly aggrieved that Jacobs had stood firm in his demands when negotiating his contract.
“He’s avarice and greedy beyond reasonable,” he told the court.
That led Adelson down a path neither his lawyers nor anyone else in court was expecting: the issue of overpaid executives and their benefits.
The billionaire complained that his expatriate executives, deployed to postings such as Macao or Singapore, were sending their children to school on the company shilling at $30,000 a year in fees for each child. Then some of them were getting Adelson’s Las Vegas Sands company to pay $50,000 a year for college education. Adelson called that “offensive”.
On top of that there’s the housing allowance – $25,000 a month in Singapore, he stressed – and a car.
“Not a Toyota like they would drive here,” he thundered.
The judge listened in what looked like bemused silence as Adelson shifted to the high cost of flying executives’ families around the world.
“Sending whole families home four times a year is not acceptable,” he said. “When it comes to flying, it has to be first-class when the whole family could fly coach.”
Adelson’s mind was churning. It was about time he restricted his executives to a maximum of two-year foreign postings, he said – a policy, if implemented, likely to create alarm in Macao and Singapore.
Adelson contrasted the high life of his executives with those of his employees further down the pecking order in his casinos on the Las Vegas strip who rely on just the one salary. He is, he opined, a good employer.
“There’s a reason why we’re the only property on the strip that’s non-union. We treat our employees so well,” he said.
His luxury hotel and casino, the Venetian, has been the target of protests by the hotel workers union and others.
Adelson contrasted what he regarded as executive greed with his own philanthropy. This has included paying for a new headquarters for the most powerful pro-Israel lobby group in Washington, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac), $100m to fund Jewish Americans to visit Israel on “birthright” trips, and $150m to try to get a Republican to replace Obama in the White House. His favoured candidate was Gingrich but he kept the money flowing after Mitt Romney won the Republican nomination.
Adelson also funds a rightwing freesheet newspaper in Israel that ardently supported Binyamin Netanyahu in the recent general election and opposes a Palestinian state.
The billionaire’s passionate support for Israel was on show before the court hearing began as he praised the Kirk Douglas film, Cast a Giant Shadow, about the birth of the modern Jewish state, with his wife and lawyer.
But once he was on the stand, the combative style, described in court documents as having alienated Macao and Chinese officials, was on full display.
He read documents through a large magnifying glass and commented sarcastically, “I’m sure you’d get an A in English”, on being asked if one of them had been read aloud correctly.
He told the judge several times that he used to be a court reporter and tried to tell the opposing lawyer – James Pisanelli, a member of a self-described “boutique law firm” – what he was allowed to ask.
“This is overreach. Be reasonable. Talk about something that’s pertinent,” Adelson said in response to one question. The judge told him he had to answer it.
Adelson was asked about what Pisanelli suggested was an irregularity in a form with his signature on it.
“You want to send me to jail? I just bought a big home. I don’t want to move to smaller quarters,” he said.
“I’m not acknowledging perjury,” he said. “You can bring a civil or criminal charge against me if you want to make that accusation stick.”
Pressed on the issue, he said: “It’s harassment.”
In response to one question, Adelson avoided an answer and then fired back: “Do you want to argue?”
The judge smiled.
At another point, Adelson declared that a document that his own lawyers did not want admitted as evidence was proof he was right all along.
“That’s the end of your case,” he told Pisanelli.
No one in court appeared to agree.
Adelson resumes testimony later this week.
Billionaire casino mogul slams executives raking in millions in ‘outrageous’ bonuses and stock options – including those in his own company
By Chris McGreal
No one has ever described Sheldon Adelson as a man happy with the world. Happy billionaires do not spend tens of millions of dollars trying to get Newt Gingrich elected president.
But it took a hearing in a Las Vegas courtroom to lay bare an unexpected target for the casino magnet’s ire along with Adelson’s more regular hostility to the “socialist” Obama, pot smokers and Palestinians.
The word’s eighth-richest man is no fan of other rich people. Or at least the “greedy” executive class raking in millions of dollars with what Adelson called “outrageous” bonuses and stock options that so disgusted supporters of the Occupy movement. High on that list are his own executives.
While testifying on Wednesday in a civil suit rooted in allegations that his casino operation in Macao made improper payments to a Chinese official and had ties to Triad organised crime, Adelson unexpectedly enlightened the court on his feelings about the bonus culture.
Adelson peppered his testimony with references to the hardship of his poor upbringing as the son of east European Jewish immigrants in a one-room tenement in Boston before he became a salesman.
“I worked my whole life, coming from the other side of the tracks,” he said at one point.
“I had to go to summer camp as a beneficiary of charity,” he said at another.
The 81-year-old billionaire reflected on the struggle his parents faced throughout their lives.
“My father didn’t have as much as $100 in his bank account when he died,” he said.
Times changed for Adelson after he turned Las Vegas into a centre for conventions and then branched into overseas gambling. He joined the ranks of the mega-rich – today Forbes estimates he is worth around $36bn – as his casino empire boomed. But he wanted the court to know that he never forgot his roots, which appeared to make him particularly averse to those he regards as having had it too easy, including his own executives.
It was questioning about the contract for the former chief executive of his Macao casino operation, who says he was unfairly dismissed for objecting to payments that could be construed as bribes and for dealings with Triad-linked groups, that set Adelson off.
Steven Jacobs negotiated a deal for millions of dollars in stock options on top of his salary. Adelson was outraged. He said bonuses and stock options were like being paid two or three salaries when one would be perfectly fine.
“You take a man who’s earning half a million dollars, and it adds up to five or six million dollars a year,” he said.
Adelson was particularly aggrieved that Jacobs had stood firm in his demands when negotiating his contract.
“He’s avarice and greedy beyond reasonable,” he told the court.
That led Adelson down a path neither his lawyers nor anyone else in court was expecting: the issue of overpaid executives and their benefits.
The billionaire complained that his expatriate executives, deployed to postings such as Macao or Singapore, were sending their children to school on the company shilling at $30,000 a year in fees for each child. Then some of them were getting Adelson’s Las Vegas Sands company to pay $50,000 a year for college education. Adelson called that “offensive”.
On top of that there’s the housing allowance – $25,000 a month in Singapore, he stressed – and a car.
“Not a Toyota like they would drive here,” he thundered.
The judge listened in what looked like bemused silence as Adelson shifted to the high cost of flying executives’ families around the world.
“Sending whole families home four times a year is not acceptable,” he said. “When it comes to flying, it has to be first-class when the whole family could fly coach.”
Adelson’s mind was churning. It was about time he restricted his executives to a maximum of two-year foreign postings, he said – a policy, if implemented, likely to create alarm in Macao and Singapore.
Adelson contrasted the high life of his executives with those of his employees further down the pecking order in his casinos on the Las Vegas strip who rely on just the one salary. He is, he opined, a good employer.
“There’s a reason why we’re the only property on the strip that’s non-union. We treat our employees so well,” he said.
His luxury hotel and casino, the Venetian, has been the target of protests by the hotel workers union and others.
Adelson contrasted what he regarded as executive greed with his own philanthropy. This has included paying for a new headquarters for the most powerful pro-Israel lobby group in Washington, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac), $100m to fund Jewish Americans to visit Israel on “birthright” trips, and $150m to try to get a Republican to replace Obama in the White House. His favoured candidate was Gingrich but he kept the money flowing after Mitt Romney won the Republican nomination.
Adelson also funds a rightwing freesheet newspaper in Israel that ardently supported Binyamin Netanyahu in the recent general election and opposes a Palestinian state.
The billionaire’s passionate support for Israel was on show before the court hearing began as he praised the Kirk Douglas film, Cast a Giant Shadow, about the birth of the modern Jewish state, with his wife and lawyer.
But once he was on the stand, the combative style, described in court documents as having alienated Macao and Chinese officials, was on full display.
He read documents through a large magnifying glass and commented sarcastically, “I’m sure you’d get an A in English”, on being asked if one of them had been read aloud correctly.
He told the judge several times that he used to be a court reporter and tried to tell the opposing lawyer – James Pisanelli, a member of a self-described “boutique law firm” – what he was allowed to ask.
“This is overreach. Be reasonable. Talk about something that’s pertinent,” Adelson said in response to one question. The judge told him he had to answer it.
Adelson was asked about what Pisanelli suggested was an irregularity in a form with his signature on it.
“You want to send me to jail? I just bought a big home. I don’t want to move to smaller quarters,” he said.
“I’m not acknowledging perjury,” he said. “You can bring a civil or criminal charge against me if you want to make that accusation stick.”
Pressed on the issue, he said: “It’s harassment.”
In response to one question, Adelson avoided an answer and then fired back: “Do you want to argue?”
The judge smiled.
At another point, Adelson declared that a document that his own lawyers did not want admitted as evidence was proof he was right all along.
“That’s the end of your case,” he told Pisanelli.
No one in court appeared to agree.
Adelson resumes testimony later this week.
David Kock's wet dream...
David Kock supports Scott Walker for president
By Richard Johnson
Billionaire David Kock is backing Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker for president and is pushing Florida Sen. Marco Rubio as his running mate.
Kock — who has been attacked by Democrats for his generous support of conservative causes — hosted a fund-raiser for the Republican Governors Association at his Palm Beach mansion last month, where 10 governors met with 90 deep-pocketed Republicans.
“I am supporting Scott Walker,” Kock told one guest in the ballroom of his 30,000-square-foot mansion. “I like how he took on the unions and won, and reduced the state’s debt.”
Kock, whose Kock Industries donated $5.275 million to the RGA last year, also said, “I told Scott Walker that Marco Rubio would be a good vice president. Gov. Walker agreed and said, ‘That’s a great idea. He’s a perfect choice.’”
As for Jeb Bush? “We’ve had enough presidents named Bush,” Kock said. Asked why Jeb is running, Kock replied, “He’s had two relatives that were president. He thinks it’s his turn.”
And former Texas Gov. Rick Perry? “I like him, but he can’t win,” Kock told my source.
A spokeswoman for Kock dismissed these quotes as “hearsay” and gave me this statement from the former MIT basketball star:
“While I think Gov. Walker is terrific, let me be clear, I am not endorsing or supporting any candidate for president at this point in time.”
By Richard Johnson
Billionaire David Kock is backing Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker for president and is pushing Florida Sen. Marco Rubio as his running mate.
Kock — who has been attacked by Democrats for his generous support of conservative causes — hosted a fund-raiser for the Republican Governors Association at his Palm Beach mansion last month, where 10 governors met with 90 deep-pocketed Republicans.
“I am supporting Scott Walker,” Kock told one guest in the ballroom of his 30,000-square-foot mansion. “I like how he took on the unions and won, and reduced the state’s debt.”
Kock, whose Kock Industries donated $5.275 million to the RGA last year, also said, “I told Scott Walker that Marco Rubio would be a good vice president. Gov. Walker agreed and said, ‘That’s a great idea. He’s a perfect choice.’”
As for Jeb Bush? “We’ve had enough presidents named Bush,” Kock said. Asked why Jeb is running, Kock replied, “He’s had two relatives that were president. He thinks it’s his turn.”
And former Texas Gov. Rick Perry? “I like him, but he can’t win,” Kock told my source.
A spokeswoman for Kock dismissed these quotes as “hearsay” and gave me this statement from the former MIT basketball star:
“While I think Gov. Walker is terrific, let me be clear, I am not endorsing or supporting any candidate for president at this point in time.”
Donors
Clinton Foundation in campaign tailspin
Donors are having second thoughts about big giving as accusations fly about Hillary Clinton’s role.
By Kenneth P. Vogel
A handful of deep-pocketed donors are reconsidering their gifts to the $2 billion Clinton Foundation amid mounting questions about how it’s spending their money and suggestions of influence peddling, according to donors and others familiar with the foundation’s fundraising.
One major donor who contributed at least $500,000 to the foundation last year said a 2015 donation is less likely because of revelations about sloppy record-keeping and huge payments for travel and administrative costs.
“There are a lot of factors and the reputational is among them,” said the donor, who did not want to be identified discussing philanthropic plans that have not been finalized. “We had some questions about how the money was being spent — and that was long before the problems were in the press.”
At least three other major donors also are re-evaluating whether to continue giving large donations to the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation, according to people familiar with its fundraising.
They say increasing financial pressures and escalating outside scrutiny have sparked sometimes intense internal debates about the priorities and future of a pioneering charitable vehicle that was supposed to cement the family’s legacy.
The uncertainty comes at the beginning of what was supposed to have been a four-month victory lap of sorts — starting with Bill and Chelsea Clinton’s trip to Africa with major donors this week. Next week’s splashy Clinton Global Initiative conference in Marrakesh was originally supposed to have been followed by a lavish reception and conference in Athens in June, and finally a September extravaganza in Manhattan featuring an appearance by Elton John.
Instead, it’s turned into heartburn for Hillary Clinton’s campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination and for the foundation, which has been under increasing pressure to distance itself from its more controversial partners.
It scrapped early internal conversations about borrowing a private plane owned by Canadian billionaire donor Frank Giustra — whose business ties to Russia have brought recent scrutiny — to fly the delegation to Africa, according to sources with knowledge of the foundation’s planning (the foundation would not say who owns the plane that was ultimately used, which suffered engine problems Wednesday and was forced to make an unscheduled landing).
And it canceled the Athens conference amid what foundation sources describe as concerns about damaging Hillary Clinton’s campaign by collaborating with a Greek government that is increasingly close to Russia’s combative president Vladimir Putin.
Bill Clinton did not want to cancel the meeting, the sources said. They said the foundation had already booked a hotel and secured more than $1 million in funding from former Greek parliamentarian Gianna Angelopoulos, a major foundation donor who is friendly with the former president.
Meanwhile, the Clintons’ daughter, Chelsea Clinton, objected to a suggestion that a high-profile program she spearheads, the Clinton Global Initiative University, be scaled back because it is as much as $700,000 in the red, say the sources. At a foundation staff meeting this month the day after her mother stepped down from the foundation board and announced her campaign for president, Chelsea Clinton defended CGI U’s value, calling the program, which holds free college events to encourage student participation in service projects, the most “pure” platform at CGI, according to the foundation sources familiar with the meeting.
This story is based on interviews with more than a dozen donors, staffers and operatives who have interacted with the foundation or continue to do so. Taken together, their accounts portray an organization scrambling to address concerns about its budgeting, fundraising and donor-vetting while being buffeted by a raging political storm.
The paradox is that Bill Clinton’s unparalleled fundraising ability — the secret to the foundation’s extraordinary global growth and programmatic successes — is now fueling the very questions and allegations complicating both the foundation’s efforts and his wife’s presidential campaign. Critics — emboldened by frenzied media scrutiny of the Clinton’s personal and charitable finances and a new book on the subject from a conservative author — are alleging without hard evidence that deep-pocketed individuals, companies and foreign governments wrote checks to the foundation or paid speaking fees to the former president to win favorable treatment from Hillary Clinton’s State Department.
Some Clinton allies argue that the former president should dial back his foundation role — even his appearances at CGI meetings, which he has embraced as his signature showcase — during the presidential campaign and any subsequent Clinton presidential administration.
“You can only imagine the scrutiny they’d face if she were president,” said a former Clinton aide, who was not authorized to speak for the foundation or the former first family. “They’d have to dramatically limit their universe of donors. But if she wins, that’s kind of a high-cost problem that they can survive,” said the former aide, suggesting the foundation’s appeal would be even greater for donors after the Clintons leave the White House for the second time.
The worst case scenario for the foundation, its allies say privately, would be if Clinton lost her presidential campaign in a manner similar to the way she lost her 2008 race to then-Sen. Barack Obama, which at least temporarily tarnished the family’s political brand. Unlike 2008, a losing 2016 campaign would effectively end the political ambitions of Bill or Hillary Clinton. That would thrust responsibility for the foundation’s future squarely into the hands of their daughter. While she is being groomed to take over the family’s political dynasty, thus far she has not demonstrated her parents’ fundraising prowess or leadership ability, say foundation sources.
In response to questions from POLITICO, Clinton Foundation officials disputed that the foundation is in turmoil or suffering from a budget crunch. They also rejected suggestions that Bill Clinton might limit his CGI role after the September meeting, pointing out he “has publicly said many times he wants to continue his work with CGI and the Clinton Foundation.” They pointed out that Elton John was invited to the New York meeting not to perform, but to collect an award for his two decades of work fighting AIDS.
Additionally, they rejected the idea that concerns about the Greek government played any role in the cancellation of CGI Athens, and said CGI U will continue at college campuses across the country. It “has never been an event designed to generate profit,” they said. “We don’t charge admission fees for students, and sponsors underwrite the ability for over 1,000 students from all 50 states and around the world to attend,” they said, explaining that “through the CGI University Network, the Resolution Project Social Venture Challenge, and other opportunities, more than $900,000 in funding opportunities were made available directly to select CGI U 2015 student commitment makers to help them turn their ideas into action.”
The foundation has combined Bill Clinton’s star power with its unique structure to bring moneyed interests together to finance major advances in causes such as the fights against AIDS and childhood obesity, for which it brokered agreements to decrease prices for HIV medication and remove sugary drinks from schools, respectively. The Africa trip — which includes stops in Tanzania, Kenya, Liberia and Morocco — will highlight foundation work on economic development, climate change, and empowerment of women and girls.
Yet, results have been mixed in the foundation’s efforts to increase its transparency and pave the way for its future work.
The foundation raised a $250 million endowment to sustain it during Hillary Clinton’s campaign and a possible second Clinton presidency, and it has promised to release donor names more frequently during the presidential campaign. Additionally, it pledged to stop taking donations from most foreign countries and suspend CGI meetings abroad after next week’s meeting in Marrakesh with King Mohammed VI of Morocco, marking the end of the Africa trip. As POLITICO revealed, the Marrakesh event is to be funded partly by a donation of more than $1 million from a Moroccan government-owned phosphate company — a donation that has drawn fire from critics who contend that Moroccan phosphate extraction in the adjacent disputed territory of Western Sahara amounts to exploitation.
The foundation has also come under scrutiny for failing to clear all foreign government donations through an agreed-upon State Department vetting process when Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, and for failing to identify foreign government donations on tax returns. Fact-checkers this week challenged the foundation’s claims that it’s barred by Canadian privacy laws from revealing the names of more than 1,000 mostly foreign donors to a joint Clinton-Giustra nonprofit registered in Vancouver, British Columbia.
It acknowledged in response to POLITICO’s questions that it mischaracterized as foundation donations money from the China Overseas Real Estate Development and the U.S.-Islamic World Conference. That money was actually honoraria paid for Bill Clinton speeches by those entities, said foundation officials, who added this week those were the only mistakes “we are aware of.”
When Chelsea Clinton was asked last week about allegations that the foundation accepted funding in return for favors from the State Department when her mother headed it, she erroneously claimed that the watchdog group Transparency International said “we’re among the most transparent of foundations.” Transparency International this week issued a rebuke to Clinton, in which it noted that it has not “focused on the transparency of nonprofit charitable foundations, including by any ranking.”
Sources familiar with the foundation’s inner workings worry that it has failed to rein in program costs or substantively expand fundraising to support its sprawling initiatives, which include everything from fighting elephant poaching to measuring female political participation.
One major philanthropy player, Apple, was courted for months by the foundation and agreed to sign up as a CGI member (which typically costs $20,000). But it has not donated more significantly, as the foundation had hoped, say sources familiar with fundraising.
“Too much money is being asked for at the same time, especially right after the endowment was just raised, and access to the Clintons is getting more limited,” said a source familiar with fundraising and budgeting. “Do less, but twice as well is not something that goes over well at CGI.”
Andrew Tobias, a longtime Clinton ally who has given between $250,000 and $500,000, said that far from being defensive over the former president’s foundation work, he thinks the campaign should tout it as a strength.
“It’s AMAZING what he’s done since leaving office,” Tobias, a personal finance author and the treasurer of the Democratic National Committee, wrote in an email. He contrasted the post-administrative efforts of Clinton, as well as fellow Democrats Jimmy Carter and Al Gore — who have worked to eradicate diseases in the developing world and raise awareness about the climate change, respectively — with the post-White House work of recent Republican presidents and vice presidents.
“They’re very nice people, I’m sure, but what, really, have the Bushes and Dan Quayle and Dick Cheney done since leaving office?” asked Tobias, who declared himself “proud to have helped a little bit” at the foundation, and said he was planning to attend the CGI meeting in New York in September. “I’m all paid up and looking forward to it. I’ve been at every one (or all but one) since the first.”
But Clinton loyalists fear that the meeting, which comes as the presidential campaign approaches the first primaries, could be — in the words of the former Clinton aide — “a media whack-fest. … Even donors that seem pretty anodyne — like the Norwegian companies that give because they don’t have their own version of USAID — are going to get a ton of scrutiny if they lobbied the State Department.” Still, the former aide predicted, even if CGI loses some sponsors, others will remain either out of loyalty to the Clintons or a desire to capitalize on the attention. “Because of the platform, where you get to stand up and announce your commitment, you’ll get a bunch of companies that will weigh the pros and cons. And, if they’re cold-blooded, they’ll say, if anything, there will be more cameras there.”
Expected sponsors of the September meeting in New York include the Swedish and Dutch Postcode Lotteries, which have jointly donated more than $31 million to the foundation, and Angelopoulos, the former Greek parliamentarian who has donated as much as $10 million through personal and foundation accounts.
Neither sponsor seems particularly concerned by recent foundation scrutiny. Angelopoulos, the wife of a billionaire shipping and steel magnate, is in talks about how to redirect her generous contribution to the canceled Athens meeting to other programs. And the Swedish and Dutch lotteries, which allocate part of ticket buyers’ purchases to charities including the Clinton Foundation, prominently feature a website endorsement from Bill Clinton and a Chelsea Clinton speech to their 2013 annual gala. The lotteries recently evaluated their foundation partnership and extended it through 2019, according to a spokesman, who praised the foundation’s efforts to fight poverty and climate change, and improve global access to medicine, food security and sustainable agriculture.
Some donors enmeshed in recent foundation controversies are considering attending the New York meeting, including Giustra, a Canadian mining billionaire, and Victor Pinchuk, a Ukrainian oligarch.
Pinchuk’s company Interpipe Group, which makes pipes for oil and gas industries, did business with Iran in 2011 and 2012, according to a Newsweek report. It suggested that company dealings could have posed a conflict for Hillary Clinton as secretary of state because her department oversaw aspects of U.S. sanctions applicable to Interpipe.
Pinchuk’s foundation has donated $8.6 million to the Clinton Foundation and pledged a further $1.5 million or more to Ukrainian projects through CGI. It has sponsored CGI’s annual meetings in past years, though it was not listed as a 2014 sponsor and will again not be among the sponsors this year.
Pinchuk might attend the New York meeting, said a spokesman for his foundation, adding the organization has no plans to end its relationship with the Clinton Foundation.
A source close to Giustra said he hasn’t decided whether to sponsor or attend the New York meeting.
Hillary Clinton, a foundation board member between her tenure as secretary of state and her presidential campaign launch this month, has occasionally participated in CGI meetings. She attended the 2007 annual meeting during her previous presidential campaign, while Obama and his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain, participated in 2008. Foundation sources say it is an election-year tradition to invite both parties’ presidential nominees to address the annual CGI meeting, but they said Hillary Clinton “is not planning to speak” in New York this year.
And don’t expect to see Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, who is seeking the GOP nomination, at CGI, a spokesman said.
Paul has attacked Clinton over the foreign government donations to the foundation, calling them “thinly veiled bribes.” Asked whether Paul might attend CGI if invited, his campaign spokesman Sergio Gor said, “He isn’t allowed to accept money from foreign governments and wouldn’t really want to pay his own way, so probably not.”
Donors are having second thoughts about big giving as accusations fly about Hillary Clinton’s role.
By Kenneth P. Vogel
A handful of deep-pocketed donors are reconsidering their gifts to the $2 billion Clinton Foundation amid mounting questions about how it’s spending their money and suggestions of influence peddling, according to donors and others familiar with the foundation’s fundraising.
One major donor who contributed at least $500,000 to the foundation last year said a 2015 donation is less likely because of revelations about sloppy record-keeping and huge payments for travel and administrative costs.
“There are a lot of factors and the reputational is among them,” said the donor, who did not want to be identified discussing philanthropic plans that have not been finalized. “We had some questions about how the money was being spent — and that was long before the problems were in the press.”
At least three other major donors also are re-evaluating whether to continue giving large donations to the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation, according to people familiar with its fundraising.
They say increasing financial pressures and escalating outside scrutiny have sparked sometimes intense internal debates about the priorities and future of a pioneering charitable vehicle that was supposed to cement the family’s legacy.
The uncertainty comes at the beginning of what was supposed to have been a four-month victory lap of sorts — starting with Bill and Chelsea Clinton’s trip to Africa with major donors this week. Next week’s splashy Clinton Global Initiative conference in Marrakesh was originally supposed to have been followed by a lavish reception and conference in Athens in June, and finally a September extravaganza in Manhattan featuring an appearance by Elton John.
Instead, it’s turned into heartburn for Hillary Clinton’s campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination and for the foundation, which has been under increasing pressure to distance itself from its more controversial partners.
It scrapped early internal conversations about borrowing a private plane owned by Canadian billionaire donor Frank Giustra — whose business ties to Russia have brought recent scrutiny — to fly the delegation to Africa, according to sources with knowledge of the foundation’s planning (the foundation would not say who owns the plane that was ultimately used, which suffered engine problems Wednesday and was forced to make an unscheduled landing).
And it canceled the Athens conference amid what foundation sources describe as concerns about damaging Hillary Clinton’s campaign by collaborating with a Greek government that is increasingly close to Russia’s combative president Vladimir Putin.
Bill Clinton did not want to cancel the meeting, the sources said. They said the foundation had already booked a hotel and secured more than $1 million in funding from former Greek parliamentarian Gianna Angelopoulos, a major foundation donor who is friendly with the former president.
Meanwhile, the Clintons’ daughter, Chelsea Clinton, objected to a suggestion that a high-profile program she spearheads, the Clinton Global Initiative University, be scaled back because it is as much as $700,000 in the red, say the sources. At a foundation staff meeting this month the day after her mother stepped down from the foundation board and announced her campaign for president, Chelsea Clinton defended CGI U’s value, calling the program, which holds free college events to encourage student participation in service projects, the most “pure” platform at CGI, according to the foundation sources familiar with the meeting.
This story is based on interviews with more than a dozen donors, staffers and operatives who have interacted with the foundation or continue to do so. Taken together, their accounts portray an organization scrambling to address concerns about its budgeting, fundraising and donor-vetting while being buffeted by a raging political storm.
The paradox is that Bill Clinton’s unparalleled fundraising ability — the secret to the foundation’s extraordinary global growth and programmatic successes — is now fueling the very questions and allegations complicating both the foundation’s efforts and his wife’s presidential campaign. Critics — emboldened by frenzied media scrutiny of the Clinton’s personal and charitable finances and a new book on the subject from a conservative author — are alleging without hard evidence that deep-pocketed individuals, companies and foreign governments wrote checks to the foundation or paid speaking fees to the former president to win favorable treatment from Hillary Clinton’s State Department.
Some Clinton allies argue that the former president should dial back his foundation role — even his appearances at CGI meetings, which he has embraced as his signature showcase — during the presidential campaign and any subsequent Clinton presidential administration.
“You can only imagine the scrutiny they’d face if she were president,” said a former Clinton aide, who was not authorized to speak for the foundation or the former first family. “They’d have to dramatically limit their universe of donors. But if she wins, that’s kind of a high-cost problem that they can survive,” said the former aide, suggesting the foundation’s appeal would be even greater for donors after the Clintons leave the White House for the second time.
The worst case scenario for the foundation, its allies say privately, would be if Clinton lost her presidential campaign in a manner similar to the way she lost her 2008 race to then-Sen. Barack Obama, which at least temporarily tarnished the family’s political brand. Unlike 2008, a losing 2016 campaign would effectively end the political ambitions of Bill or Hillary Clinton. That would thrust responsibility for the foundation’s future squarely into the hands of their daughter. While she is being groomed to take over the family’s political dynasty, thus far she has not demonstrated her parents’ fundraising prowess or leadership ability, say foundation sources.
In response to questions from POLITICO, Clinton Foundation officials disputed that the foundation is in turmoil or suffering from a budget crunch. They also rejected suggestions that Bill Clinton might limit his CGI role after the September meeting, pointing out he “has publicly said many times he wants to continue his work with CGI and the Clinton Foundation.” They pointed out that Elton John was invited to the New York meeting not to perform, but to collect an award for his two decades of work fighting AIDS.
Additionally, they rejected the idea that concerns about the Greek government played any role in the cancellation of CGI Athens, and said CGI U will continue at college campuses across the country. It “has never been an event designed to generate profit,” they said. “We don’t charge admission fees for students, and sponsors underwrite the ability for over 1,000 students from all 50 states and around the world to attend,” they said, explaining that “through the CGI University Network, the Resolution Project Social Venture Challenge, and other opportunities, more than $900,000 in funding opportunities were made available directly to select CGI U 2015 student commitment makers to help them turn their ideas into action.”
The foundation has combined Bill Clinton’s star power with its unique structure to bring moneyed interests together to finance major advances in causes such as the fights against AIDS and childhood obesity, for which it brokered agreements to decrease prices for HIV medication and remove sugary drinks from schools, respectively. The Africa trip — which includes stops in Tanzania, Kenya, Liberia and Morocco — will highlight foundation work on economic development, climate change, and empowerment of women and girls.
Yet, results have been mixed in the foundation’s efforts to increase its transparency and pave the way for its future work.
The foundation raised a $250 million endowment to sustain it during Hillary Clinton’s campaign and a possible second Clinton presidency, and it has promised to release donor names more frequently during the presidential campaign. Additionally, it pledged to stop taking donations from most foreign countries and suspend CGI meetings abroad after next week’s meeting in Marrakesh with King Mohammed VI of Morocco, marking the end of the Africa trip. As POLITICO revealed, the Marrakesh event is to be funded partly by a donation of more than $1 million from a Moroccan government-owned phosphate company — a donation that has drawn fire from critics who contend that Moroccan phosphate extraction in the adjacent disputed territory of Western Sahara amounts to exploitation.
The foundation has also come under scrutiny for failing to clear all foreign government donations through an agreed-upon State Department vetting process when Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, and for failing to identify foreign government donations on tax returns. Fact-checkers this week challenged the foundation’s claims that it’s barred by Canadian privacy laws from revealing the names of more than 1,000 mostly foreign donors to a joint Clinton-Giustra nonprofit registered in Vancouver, British Columbia.
It acknowledged in response to POLITICO’s questions that it mischaracterized as foundation donations money from the China Overseas Real Estate Development and the U.S.-Islamic World Conference. That money was actually honoraria paid for Bill Clinton speeches by those entities, said foundation officials, who added this week those were the only mistakes “we are aware of.”
When Chelsea Clinton was asked last week about allegations that the foundation accepted funding in return for favors from the State Department when her mother headed it, she erroneously claimed that the watchdog group Transparency International said “we’re among the most transparent of foundations.” Transparency International this week issued a rebuke to Clinton, in which it noted that it has not “focused on the transparency of nonprofit charitable foundations, including by any ranking.”
Sources familiar with the foundation’s inner workings worry that it has failed to rein in program costs or substantively expand fundraising to support its sprawling initiatives, which include everything from fighting elephant poaching to measuring female political participation.
One major philanthropy player, Apple, was courted for months by the foundation and agreed to sign up as a CGI member (which typically costs $20,000). But it has not donated more significantly, as the foundation had hoped, say sources familiar with fundraising.
“Too much money is being asked for at the same time, especially right after the endowment was just raised, and access to the Clintons is getting more limited,” said a source familiar with fundraising and budgeting. “Do less, but twice as well is not something that goes over well at CGI.”
Andrew Tobias, a longtime Clinton ally who has given between $250,000 and $500,000, said that far from being defensive over the former president’s foundation work, he thinks the campaign should tout it as a strength.
“It’s AMAZING what he’s done since leaving office,” Tobias, a personal finance author and the treasurer of the Democratic National Committee, wrote in an email. He contrasted the post-administrative efforts of Clinton, as well as fellow Democrats Jimmy Carter and Al Gore — who have worked to eradicate diseases in the developing world and raise awareness about the climate change, respectively — with the post-White House work of recent Republican presidents and vice presidents.
“They’re very nice people, I’m sure, but what, really, have the Bushes and Dan Quayle and Dick Cheney done since leaving office?” asked Tobias, who declared himself “proud to have helped a little bit” at the foundation, and said he was planning to attend the CGI meeting in New York in September. “I’m all paid up and looking forward to it. I’ve been at every one (or all but one) since the first.”
But Clinton loyalists fear that the meeting, which comes as the presidential campaign approaches the first primaries, could be — in the words of the former Clinton aide — “a media whack-fest. … Even donors that seem pretty anodyne — like the Norwegian companies that give because they don’t have their own version of USAID — are going to get a ton of scrutiny if they lobbied the State Department.” Still, the former aide predicted, even if CGI loses some sponsors, others will remain either out of loyalty to the Clintons or a desire to capitalize on the attention. “Because of the platform, where you get to stand up and announce your commitment, you’ll get a bunch of companies that will weigh the pros and cons. And, if they’re cold-blooded, they’ll say, if anything, there will be more cameras there.”
Expected sponsors of the September meeting in New York include the Swedish and Dutch Postcode Lotteries, which have jointly donated more than $31 million to the foundation, and Angelopoulos, the former Greek parliamentarian who has donated as much as $10 million through personal and foundation accounts.
Neither sponsor seems particularly concerned by recent foundation scrutiny. Angelopoulos, the wife of a billionaire shipping and steel magnate, is in talks about how to redirect her generous contribution to the canceled Athens meeting to other programs. And the Swedish and Dutch lotteries, which allocate part of ticket buyers’ purchases to charities including the Clinton Foundation, prominently feature a website endorsement from Bill Clinton and a Chelsea Clinton speech to their 2013 annual gala. The lotteries recently evaluated their foundation partnership and extended it through 2019, according to a spokesman, who praised the foundation’s efforts to fight poverty and climate change, and improve global access to medicine, food security and sustainable agriculture.
Some donors enmeshed in recent foundation controversies are considering attending the New York meeting, including Giustra, a Canadian mining billionaire, and Victor Pinchuk, a Ukrainian oligarch.
Pinchuk’s company Interpipe Group, which makes pipes for oil and gas industries, did business with Iran in 2011 and 2012, according to a Newsweek report. It suggested that company dealings could have posed a conflict for Hillary Clinton as secretary of state because her department oversaw aspects of U.S. sanctions applicable to Interpipe.
Pinchuk’s foundation has donated $8.6 million to the Clinton Foundation and pledged a further $1.5 million or more to Ukrainian projects through CGI. It has sponsored CGI’s annual meetings in past years, though it was not listed as a 2014 sponsor and will again not be among the sponsors this year.
Pinchuk might attend the New York meeting, said a spokesman for his foundation, adding the organization has no plans to end its relationship with the Clinton Foundation.
A source close to Giustra said he hasn’t decided whether to sponsor or attend the New York meeting.
Hillary Clinton, a foundation board member between her tenure as secretary of state and her presidential campaign launch this month, has occasionally participated in CGI meetings. She attended the 2007 annual meeting during her previous presidential campaign, while Obama and his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain, participated in 2008. Foundation sources say it is an election-year tradition to invite both parties’ presidential nominees to address the annual CGI meeting, but they said Hillary Clinton “is not planning to speak” in New York this year.
And don’t expect to see Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, who is seeking the GOP nomination, at CGI, a spokesman said.
Paul has attacked Clinton over the foreign government donations to the foundation, calling them “thinly veiled bribes.” Asked whether Paul might attend CGI if invited, his campaign spokesman Sergio Gor said, “He isn’t allowed to accept money from foreign governments and wouldn’t really want to pay his own way, so probably not.”
Bush, Clinton money show...
Bush, Clinton send divergent signals on early fundraising
By JULIE PACE
Jeb Bush wants Republicans to know he's breaking fundraising records. Hillary Rodham Clinton wants Democrats to think she won't.
While many Republicans expect Bush to have raised $100 million by the time he declares his candidacy, Clinton advisers say that's their modest goal for the entire primary season.
The reality is that both campaigns will be flush with high-dollar donors. Bush and Clinton could each pull in more than $1 billion if they become their party's nominee. But the disparate early signals Bush and Clinton are sending about campaign cash underscore the contrasting ways the heirs to two political families are positioning themselves in the 2016 presidential contest.
For Bush, building a fundraising juggernaut is seen as a way to surge ahead of rivals while ensuring he has the money to stay competitive if the race drags on into next spring or summer. The former Florida governor isn't expected to launch his campaign until at least June, giving him more time to raise money aggressively for his Right to Rise super PAC before he's legally barred from coordinating with the organization.
For Clinton, who so far faces no serious primary competition, lowering fundraising expectations is a bid to dispel the notion that she is her party's inevitable nominee. She's holding a smattering of lower dollar campaign fundraisers, with tickets running $2,700 per person, during the next two weeks.
Clinton had originally planned to wait until May to start fundraising, but told advisers she was concerned about the prowess of Bush's money operation and wanted to start sooner, according to a person familiar with the campaign plans. That person was not authorized to discuss the campaign's plans and insisted on anonymity.
Clinton has so far taken no direct action to bolster the Democratic super PAC, Priorities USA Action, nor has she signaled to supporters that they should be funneling money to it.
Instead, the Clinton campaign is trying to infuse its fundraising operation with more of a grassroots feel. Top donors are being asked to call and email their contacts, then track their contributions on personalized fundraising pages. There's a greater emphasis on attracting smaller donors, something President Barack Obama did effectively during his two campaigns.
"It's good politics," said Ira Leesfield, a Miami attorney and longtime Clinton financial backer. "If a person sends 100 bucks, 50 bucks, they're probably going to go out and vote."
Another benefit for skipping opulent fundraising parties? "No one has to hire a caterer," Leesfield quipped.
Bush invited more than 300 donors to Miami's glamorous South Beach this week for a private two-day retreat at an eco-friendly seaside hotel. Donors received policy briefings from Bush advisers and mingled at a rooftop cocktail party.
Bush, who has headlined more than 60 fundraisers this year, told donors he had set a record for Republican political fundraising. Right to Rise doesn't plan to release any fundraising numbers until July and Bush did not provide donors a figure to back up his assertion.
Advisers said Bush was comparing his current totals with the $37 million his brother George W. Bush raised in the first four months of the 2000 campaign, before the era of super PACs and unlimited donations.
It appears likely Bush will hit $100 million by the time his super PAC releases figures this summer.
While most Republican strategists expect Bush to lead his rivals in the early fundraising race, it's unclear how significant his advantage will be. Sens. Marco Rubio of Florida, Ted Cruz of Texas and Rand Paul of Kentucky have all displayed fundraising prowess. And some billionaire donors are yet to commit to a candidate.
Without the big gang of rivals, Clinton sees little incentive in focusing on fundraising at this stage, at least publicly. Her finance team has set a $100 million goal for the primary and does not plan to take general election money initially. During her failed 2008 race against Obama, Clinton raised $229 million before bowing out of the primary, though some of that money was allocated for the general election.
Clinton's first campaign predated the 2010 Supreme Court decision clearing the way for super PACs to collect unlimited donations.
Priorities USA raised about $75 million for Obama's re-election, significantly less than Republican outside groups. But it attracted attention for aggressive advertisements criticizing Republican nominee Mitt Romney's business record, sometimes relying on cheaper online ad buys or free media, rather than purchasing extensive — and expensive — TV time.
Priorities USA officials say they expect the organization to keep a narrow focus on television and digital advertisements during the 2016 contest. Bush, meanwhile, is considering a plan that would shift some core campaign functions to his super PAC.
By JULIE PACE
Jeb Bush wants Republicans to know he's breaking fundraising records. Hillary Rodham Clinton wants Democrats to think she won't.
While many Republicans expect Bush to have raised $100 million by the time he declares his candidacy, Clinton advisers say that's their modest goal for the entire primary season.
The reality is that both campaigns will be flush with high-dollar donors. Bush and Clinton could each pull in more than $1 billion if they become their party's nominee. But the disparate early signals Bush and Clinton are sending about campaign cash underscore the contrasting ways the heirs to two political families are positioning themselves in the 2016 presidential contest.
For Bush, building a fundraising juggernaut is seen as a way to surge ahead of rivals while ensuring he has the money to stay competitive if the race drags on into next spring or summer. The former Florida governor isn't expected to launch his campaign until at least June, giving him more time to raise money aggressively for his Right to Rise super PAC before he's legally barred from coordinating with the organization.
For Clinton, who so far faces no serious primary competition, lowering fundraising expectations is a bid to dispel the notion that she is her party's inevitable nominee. She's holding a smattering of lower dollar campaign fundraisers, with tickets running $2,700 per person, during the next two weeks.
Clinton had originally planned to wait until May to start fundraising, but told advisers she was concerned about the prowess of Bush's money operation and wanted to start sooner, according to a person familiar with the campaign plans. That person was not authorized to discuss the campaign's plans and insisted on anonymity.
Clinton has so far taken no direct action to bolster the Democratic super PAC, Priorities USA Action, nor has she signaled to supporters that they should be funneling money to it.
Instead, the Clinton campaign is trying to infuse its fundraising operation with more of a grassroots feel. Top donors are being asked to call and email their contacts, then track their contributions on personalized fundraising pages. There's a greater emphasis on attracting smaller donors, something President Barack Obama did effectively during his two campaigns.
"It's good politics," said Ira Leesfield, a Miami attorney and longtime Clinton financial backer. "If a person sends 100 bucks, 50 bucks, they're probably going to go out and vote."
Another benefit for skipping opulent fundraising parties? "No one has to hire a caterer," Leesfield quipped.
Bush invited more than 300 donors to Miami's glamorous South Beach this week for a private two-day retreat at an eco-friendly seaside hotel. Donors received policy briefings from Bush advisers and mingled at a rooftop cocktail party.
Bush, who has headlined more than 60 fundraisers this year, told donors he had set a record for Republican political fundraising. Right to Rise doesn't plan to release any fundraising numbers until July and Bush did not provide donors a figure to back up his assertion.
Advisers said Bush was comparing his current totals with the $37 million his brother George W. Bush raised in the first four months of the 2000 campaign, before the era of super PACs and unlimited donations.
It appears likely Bush will hit $100 million by the time his super PAC releases figures this summer.
While most Republican strategists expect Bush to lead his rivals in the early fundraising race, it's unclear how significant his advantage will be. Sens. Marco Rubio of Florida, Ted Cruz of Texas and Rand Paul of Kentucky have all displayed fundraising prowess. And some billionaire donors are yet to commit to a candidate.
Without the big gang of rivals, Clinton sees little incentive in focusing on fundraising at this stage, at least publicly. Her finance team has set a $100 million goal for the primary and does not plan to take general election money initially. During her failed 2008 race against Obama, Clinton raised $229 million before bowing out of the primary, though some of that money was allocated for the general election.
Clinton's first campaign predated the 2010 Supreme Court decision clearing the way for super PACs to collect unlimited donations.
Priorities USA raised about $75 million for Obama's re-election, significantly less than Republican outside groups. But it attracted attention for aggressive advertisements criticizing Republican nominee Mitt Romney's business record, sometimes relying on cheaper online ad buys or free media, rather than purchasing extensive — and expensive — TV time.
Priorities USA officials say they expect the organization to keep a narrow focus on television and digital advertisements during the 2016 contest. Bush, meanwhile, is considering a plan that would shift some core campaign functions to his super PAC.
Sanders and Money
Senator Bernie Sanders Calls Hillary Clinton Foundation Money ‘A Very Serious Problem’
By ARLETTE SAENZ
Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont, said he is concerned by the millions of dollars flowing into the Clinton Foundation at a time when he thinks money plays too strong a role in politics.
“It tells me what is a very serious problem,” Sanders said in an interview with ABC News’ Chief White House Correspondent Jonathan Karl. “It's not just about Hillary Clinton or Bill Clinton. It is about a political system today that is dominated by big money. It's about the Koch brothers being prepared to spend $900 million dollars in the coming election.
“So do I have concerns about the Clinton Foundation and that money? I do,” he added. “But I am concerned about Sheldon Adelson and his billions. I’m concerned about the Koch Brothers and their billions. We're looking at a system where our democracy is being owned by a handful of billionaires.”
Sanders said that “anybody now who is running for office, with few exceptions,” is part of that system.
“I am one of the exceptions," he said. "I am not going to start a super PAC. I’m not going to go around the country talking to millionaires. Now I'm saving my time because they wouldn't give me any money anyhow and that's fine.”
The two-term Vermont senator announced he will run for president in 2016. Sanders, the longest serving independent lawmaker in congressional history, will run as a Democrat in the primaries – the first official challenger to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
“Do I go into this thing as the underdog? Absolutely, no question about it,” he said. “We're going to be heavily outspent, but I think the American people have had enough of establishment politics, i think they want real change i think they want to see a movement which stands up to the billionaire class.”
In the most recent ABC News/Washington Post poll, Sanders was supported for the Democratic presidential nomination by 5 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents who are registered to vote, trailing behind Clinton by 61 percent.
Sanders, who serves as the top Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee, has advocated for increases to Medicare and Social Security benefits and pushed for ending tax cuts for the wealthy, which he has described as “Robin Hood in reverse.”
“No we're not going to give more tax breaks to billionaires,” he said. “In fact maybe it’s about time that the richest people in this country and the largest corporations started paying their fair share of taxes.”
Sanders, 73, is a self-described Democratic socialist. President Obama even recently joked about what a Sanders campaign would look like.
“Bernie Sanders might run. I like Bernie. Bernie’s an interesting guy. Apparently, some folks want to see a pot-smoking socialist in the White House,” President Obama said at this year’s White House Correspondent’s Dinner. “We could get a third Obama term after all.”
“As a matter of fact, I'm not a pot smoker. I have admittedly some 30, 40 years ago,” Sanders said. “I know people get hung up on the word socialism…I think there are things we can learn from social democratic countries around the world where in fact government does work for ordinary people in a much greater degree than it does in our country.”
Sanders said his first campaign stop will be in New Hampshire this weekend. His formal campaign kick-off will be in May, likely in his home state of Vermont.
By ARLETTE SAENZ
Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont, said he is concerned by the millions of dollars flowing into the Clinton Foundation at a time when he thinks money plays too strong a role in politics.
“It tells me what is a very serious problem,” Sanders said in an interview with ABC News’ Chief White House Correspondent Jonathan Karl. “It's not just about Hillary Clinton or Bill Clinton. It is about a political system today that is dominated by big money. It's about the Koch brothers being prepared to spend $900 million dollars in the coming election.
“So do I have concerns about the Clinton Foundation and that money? I do,” he added. “But I am concerned about Sheldon Adelson and his billions. I’m concerned about the Koch Brothers and their billions. We're looking at a system where our democracy is being owned by a handful of billionaires.”
Sanders said that “anybody now who is running for office, with few exceptions,” is part of that system.
“I am one of the exceptions," he said. "I am not going to start a super PAC. I’m not going to go around the country talking to millionaires. Now I'm saving my time because they wouldn't give me any money anyhow and that's fine.”
The two-term Vermont senator announced he will run for president in 2016. Sanders, the longest serving independent lawmaker in congressional history, will run as a Democrat in the primaries – the first official challenger to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
“Do I go into this thing as the underdog? Absolutely, no question about it,” he said. “We're going to be heavily outspent, but I think the American people have had enough of establishment politics, i think they want real change i think they want to see a movement which stands up to the billionaire class.”
In the most recent ABC News/Washington Post poll, Sanders was supported for the Democratic presidential nomination by 5 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents who are registered to vote, trailing behind Clinton by 61 percent.
Sanders, who serves as the top Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee, has advocated for increases to Medicare and Social Security benefits and pushed for ending tax cuts for the wealthy, which he has described as “Robin Hood in reverse.”
“No we're not going to give more tax breaks to billionaires,” he said. “In fact maybe it’s about time that the richest people in this country and the largest corporations started paying their fair share of taxes.”
Sanders, 73, is a self-described Democratic socialist. President Obama even recently joked about what a Sanders campaign would look like.
“Bernie Sanders might run. I like Bernie. Bernie’s an interesting guy. Apparently, some folks want to see a pot-smoking socialist in the White House,” President Obama said at this year’s White House Correspondent’s Dinner. “We could get a third Obama term after all.”
“As a matter of fact, I'm not a pot smoker. I have admittedly some 30, 40 years ago,” Sanders said. “I know people get hung up on the word socialism…I think there are things we can learn from social democratic countries around the world where in fact government does work for ordinary people in a much greater degree than it does in our country.”
Sanders said his first campaign stop will be in New Hampshire this weekend. His formal campaign kick-off will be in May, likely in his home state of Vermont.
Sanders for Prez...
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders says he's running for president
By DAVE GRAM
Promising to fight what he deems "obscene levels" of income disparity and a campaign finance system that is a "real disgrace," independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders said Wednesday he will run for president as a Democrat.
In an interview with The Associated Press, Sanders confirmed his plans to formally join the race Thursday.
The self-described "democratic socialist" enters the race as a robust liberal alternative to Hillary Rodham Clinton, and he pledged to do more than simply raise progressive issues or nudge the former secretary of state to the left in a campaign in which she is heavily favored.
"People should not underestimate me," Sanders said. "I've run outside of the two-party system, defeating Democrats and Republicans, taking on big-money candidates and, you know, I think the message that has resonated in Vermont is a message that can resonate all over this country."
As he has for months in prospective campaign stops in the early voting states, and throughout his political career, the former mayor of Burlington, Vermont, on Wednesday assailed an economic system that he said has devolved over the past 40 years and eradicated the nation's middle class.
"What we have seen is that while the average person is working longer hours for lower wages, we have seen a huge increase in income and wealth inequality, which is now reaching obscene levels," Sanders told the AP.
"This is a rigged economy, which works for the rich and the powerful, and is not working for ordinary Americans. ... You know, this country just does not belong to a handful of billionaires."
The son of an immigrant from Poland who sold paint for a living in Brooklyn, Sanders has for decades championed working-class Americans. He lost several statewide races in the 1970s before he was elected mayor of Burlington in 1981, and went on to represent Vermont in the U.S. House for 16 years before his election to the Senate in 2006.
An independent in the Senate, he caucuses with Democrats in Washington and he is likely to attract some interest from voters who have unsuccessfully sought to draft Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren to join the race.
But Sanders rejected the idea his appeal is limited to voters on the left, boldly predicting Wednesday that his message would appeal to both fellow independents and Republicans.
Sanders said he would release "very specific proposals" to raise taxes on wealthy Americans and corporations, as well as offer tuition-free education at all public colleges and universities. He touched on his past opposition to free-trade agreements, his support for heavier regulations of Wall Street and the nation's banking industry, and his vote against the Keystone XL oil pipeline as a preview of his campaign.
"So to me, the question is whose views come closer to representing the vast majority of working people in this country," Sanders said. "And you know what? I think my views do."
The 73-year-old Sanders starts his campaign as an undisputed underdog against Clinton. Sanders said he has known the former first lady, senator from New York and secretary of state for more than two decades. "I respect her and like her," he said.
He noted he has "never run a negative ad in my life," but still drew a distinction with Clinton in the interview, promising to talk "very strongly about the need not to get involved in perpetual warfare in the Middle East."
"I voted against the war in Iraq," he said. "Secretary Clinton voted for it when she was in the Senate."
Clinton is hosting a series of fundraisers this week, starting what could be an effort that raises more than $1 billion. Sanders said he will make money and politics a central theme of his campaign, including a call for a constitutional amendment to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision, which he blames for unleashing a torrent of money from wealthy donors into politics.
"What you're looking at here is a real disgrace," he said. "It is an undermining of American democracy.
"But can we raise the hundreds of millions of dollars that we need, primarily through small campaign contributions to run a strong campaign? And I have concluded that I think there is a real chance that we can do that."
Sanders is the first major challenger to enter the race against Clinton, who earlier this month became the first Democrat to formally declare her intention to run for president. He is likely to be joined in the coming months by former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb and ex-Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee.
By DAVE GRAM
Promising to fight what he deems "obscene levels" of income disparity and a campaign finance system that is a "real disgrace," independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders said Wednesday he will run for president as a Democrat.
In an interview with The Associated Press, Sanders confirmed his plans to formally join the race Thursday.
The self-described "democratic socialist" enters the race as a robust liberal alternative to Hillary Rodham Clinton, and he pledged to do more than simply raise progressive issues or nudge the former secretary of state to the left in a campaign in which she is heavily favored.
"People should not underestimate me," Sanders said. "I've run outside of the two-party system, defeating Democrats and Republicans, taking on big-money candidates and, you know, I think the message that has resonated in Vermont is a message that can resonate all over this country."
As he has for months in prospective campaign stops in the early voting states, and throughout his political career, the former mayor of Burlington, Vermont, on Wednesday assailed an economic system that he said has devolved over the past 40 years and eradicated the nation's middle class.
"What we have seen is that while the average person is working longer hours for lower wages, we have seen a huge increase in income and wealth inequality, which is now reaching obscene levels," Sanders told the AP.
"This is a rigged economy, which works for the rich and the powerful, and is not working for ordinary Americans. ... You know, this country just does not belong to a handful of billionaires."
The son of an immigrant from Poland who sold paint for a living in Brooklyn, Sanders has for decades championed working-class Americans. He lost several statewide races in the 1970s before he was elected mayor of Burlington in 1981, and went on to represent Vermont in the U.S. House for 16 years before his election to the Senate in 2006.
An independent in the Senate, he caucuses with Democrats in Washington and he is likely to attract some interest from voters who have unsuccessfully sought to draft Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren to join the race.
But Sanders rejected the idea his appeal is limited to voters on the left, boldly predicting Wednesday that his message would appeal to both fellow independents and Republicans.
Sanders said he would release "very specific proposals" to raise taxes on wealthy Americans and corporations, as well as offer tuition-free education at all public colleges and universities. He touched on his past opposition to free-trade agreements, his support for heavier regulations of Wall Street and the nation's banking industry, and his vote against the Keystone XL oil pipeline as a preview of his campaign.
"So to me, the question is whose views come closer to representing the vast majority of working people in this country," Sanders said. "And you know what? I think my views do."
The 73-year-old Sanders starts his campaign as an undisputed underdog against Clinton. Sanders said he has known the former first lady, senator from New York and secretary of state for more than two decades. "I respect her and like her," he said.
He noted he has "never run a negative ad in my life," but still drew a distinction with Clinton in the interview, promising to talk "very strongly about the need not to get involved in perpetual warfare in the Middle East."
"I voted against the war in Iraq," he said. "Secretary Clinton voted for it when she was in the Senate."
Clinton is hosting a series of fundraisers this week, starting what could be an effort that raises more than $1 billion. Sanders said he will make money and politics a central theme of his campaign, including a call for a constitutional amendment to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision, which he blames for unleashing a torrent of money from wealthy donors into politics.
"What you're looking at here is a real disgrace," he said. "It is an undermining of American democracy.
"But can we raise the hundreds of millions of dollars that we need, primarily through small campaign contributions to run a strong campaign? And I have concluded that I think there is a real chance that we can do that."
Sanders is the first major challenger to enter the race against Clinton, who earlier this month became the first Democrat to formally declare her intention to run for president. He is likely to be joined in the coming months by former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb and ex-Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee.
Finance Restrictions
Supreme Court Actually Upholds Campaign Finance Restrictions On Judicial Fundraising
By Paul Blumenthal
In a 5-4 decision on Wednesday, the Supreme Court upheld the right of states to ban elected judges from soliciting campaign contributions for their own campaigns. The majority decision was penned by Chief Justice John Roberts and joined by the court’s four liberal justices.
The decision comes after a long string of court rulings that overturned campaign finance regulations, among them the well-known 2010 Citizens United and the 2014 McCutcheon cases. Wednesday's ruling, by contrast, upholds a campaign finance regulation, and does so by making a strong distinction between the role of the judiciary and the role of elected legislative and executive officials.
Explaining this distinction, Roberts, writing for the majority, said: “A State’s interest in preserving public confidence in the integrity of its judiciary extends beyond its interest in preventing the appearance of corruption in legislative and executive elections. As we explained in [Republican Party of Minnesota v. White], States may regulate judicial elections differently than they regulate political elections, because the role of judges differs from the role of politicians.”
In the case before the court, Florida judicial candidate Lanell Williams-Yulee had signed her name to a fundraising solicitation letter while running for office in 2009. She did so despite Florida’s ban on fundraising solicitation by judicial candidates. Candidates like Williams-Yulee are allowed to raise money through campaign committees, but they may not solicit the funds themselves. Williams-Yulee challenged the law as a restriction of her First Amendment right to free speech.
The court, however, did not agree. Instead, it upheld the Florida ban on direct judicial candidate solicitation because of what Roberts described as the unique way the judiciary maintains its authority. While politicians are expected to balance a variety of interests and receive support from various quarters, judges must be seen by the public as being fair and above influence.
“In deciding cases, a judge is not to follow the preferences of his supporters, or provide any special consideration to his campaign donors,” Roberts wrote.
He concluded, “This is therefore one of the rare cases in which a speech restriction withstands strict scrutiny.”
Roberts had previously been a strong opponent of campaign finance restrictions, having sided with the majority in Citizens United, McCutcheon and a handful of other cases related to the issue. His decision to back a new standard -- one maintaining that judges, and therefore the campaign finance laws covering them, are different from politicians -- marks a major shift for the court.
As Rick Hasen, an election law expert at the University of California, Irvine, wrote on his Election Law Blog Wednesday: “This is a huge change in Supreme Court doctrine, where in cases like Minnesota Republican Party v. White the Court did not accept such differences as a basis for restricting the speech of judicial candidates. This is an acceptance of Justice [Ruth Bader] Ginsburg’s White dissent, in which she rejected the 'unilocular' an election is an election.”
For her part, Ginsburg went along with Roberts’ opinion, aside from the chief justice’s decision to apply strict scrutiny -- the most stringent form of judicial review -- to the Florida Bar’s fundraising solicitation ban. But it was the second section of Ginsburg’s concurrence that hinted at the future importance of the Williams-Yulee decision.
In her opinion, Ginsburg took the logic advanced by Roberts -- that certain fundamental differences separate judges from politicians -- and extended it to other campaign finance laws. She argued that the entirety of existing Supreme Court precedent on campaign finance law for politicians should not apply to campaign finance law for judges.
“The Court’s recent campaign-finance decisions, trained on political actors, should not hold sway for judicial elections,” she wrote.
This brings up the question of whether unlimited corporate independent expenditures, as allowed under Citizens United, could be banned by individual states for judicial elections.
To make her point, Ginsburg introduced a record of reports and studies showing that judges have, at various times, changed their opinions based on pressure from campaign donors and as a result of independent expenditures from super PACs and similar groups.
The four-vote dissent from the majority opinion came from conservative Justices Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas.
In a dissent joined by Thomas, Scalia wrote:
The first axiom of the First Amendment is this: As a general rule, the state has no power to ban speech on the basis of its content. One need not equate judges with politicians to see that this principle does not grow weaker merely because the censored speech is a judicial candidate’s request for a campaign contribution.
A separate dissent written by Kennedy seemed to echo his own Citizens United opinion by asserting broad First Amendment speech rights while stating that only disclosure rules are necessary to fulfill the public’s need to judge whether a candidate is corrupt or not.
By Paul Blumenthal
In a 5-4 decision on Wednesday, the Supreme Court upheld the right of states to ban elected judges from soliciting campaign contributions for their own campaigns. The majority decision was penned by Chief Justice John Roberts and joined by the court’s four liberal justices.
The decision comes after a long string of court rulings that overturned campaign finance regulations, among them the well-known 2010 Citizens United and the 2014 McCutcheon cases. Wednesday's ruling, by contrast, upholds a campaign finance regulation, and does so by making a strong distinction between the role of the judiciary and the role of elected legislative and executive officials.
Explaining this distinction, Roberts, writing for the majority, said: “A State’s interest in preserving public confidence in the integrity of its judiciary extends beyond its interest in preventing the appearance of corruption in legislative and executive elections. As we explained in [Republican Party of Minnesota v. White], States may regulate judicial elections differently than they regulate political elections, because the role of judges differs from the role of politicians.”
In the case before the court, Florida judicial candidate Lanell Williams-Yulee had signed her name to a fundraising solicitation letter while running for office in 2009. She did so despite Florida’s ban on fundraising solicitation by judicial candidates. Candidates like Williams-Yulee are allowed to raise money through campaign committees, but they may not solicit the funds themselves. Williams-Yulee challenged the law as a restriction of her First Amendment right to free speech.
The court, however, did not agree. Instead, it upheld the Florida ban on direct judicial candidate solicitation because of what Roberts described as the unique way the judiciary maintains its authority. While politicians are expected to balance a variety of interests and receive support from various quarters, judges must be seen by the public as being fair and above influence.
“In deciding cases, a judge is not to follow the preferences of his supporters, or provide any special consideration to his campaign donors,” Roberts wrote.
He concluded, “This is therefore one of the rare cases in which a speech restriction withstands strict scrutiny.”
Roberts had previously been a strong opponent of campaign finance restrictions, having sided with the majority in Citizens United, McCutcheon and a handful of other cases related to the issue. His decision to back a new standard -- one maintaining that judges, and therefore the campaign finance laws covering them, are different from politicians -- marks a major shift for the court.
As Rick Hasen, an election law expert at the University of California, Irvine, wrote on his Election Law Blog Wednesday: “This is a huge change in Supreme Court doctrine, where in cases like Minnesota Republican Party v. White the Court did not accept such differences as a basis for restricting the speech of judicial candidates. This is an acceptance of Justice [Ruth Bader] Ginsburg’s White dissent, in which she rejected the 'unilocular' an election is an election.”
For her part, Ginsburg went along with Roberts’ opinion, aside from the chief justice’s decision to apply strict scrutiny -- the most stringent form of judicial review -- to the Florida Bar’s fundraising solicitation ban. But it was the second section of Ginsburg’s concurrence that hinted at the future importance of the Williams-Yulee decision.
In her opinion, Ginsburg took the logic advanced by Roberts -- that certain fundamental differences separate judges from politicians -- and extended it to other campaign finance laws. She argued that the entirety of existing Supreme Court precedent on campaign finance law for politicians should not apply to campaign finance law for judges.
“The Court’s recent campaign-finance decisions, trained on political actors, should not hold sway for judicial elections,” she wrote.
This brings up the question of whether unlimited corporate independent expenditures, as allowed under Citizens United, could be banned by individual states for judicial elections.
To make her point, Ginsburg introduced a record of reports and studies showing that judges have, at various times, changed their opinions based on pressure from campaign donors and as a result of independent expenditures from super PACs and similar groups.
The four-vote dissent from the majority opinion came from conservative Justices Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas.
In a dissent joined by Thomas, Scalia wrote:
The first axiom of the First Amendment is this: As a general rule, the state has no power to ban speech on the basis of its content. One need not equate judges with politicians to see that this principle does not grow weaker merely because the censored speech is a judicial candidate’s request for a campaign contribution.
A separate dissent written by Kennedy seemed to echo his own Citizens United opinion by asserting broad First Amendment speech rights while stating that only disclosure rules are necessary to fulfill the public’s need to judge whether a candidate is corrupt or not.
Total loss
Russia's spinning cargo capsule for space station total loss
By Marcia Dunn
A Russian supply capsule that went into an uncontrollable spin after launch was declared a total loss Wednesday, but astronauts at the International Space Station said they will get by without the delivery of fresh food, water, clothes and equipment.
"We should be OK," NASA astronaut Scott Kelly assured The Associated Press. "I think we're going to be in good shape."
Kelly and Russian Mikhail Kornienko, the space station's one-year crew members, told the AP during an interview that flight controllers had given up trying to command the cargo carrier. NASA and the Russian Space Agency later confirmed the news.
The unmanned Progress vessel, bearing 3 tons of goods, began tumbling when it reached orbit Tuesday, following launch from Kazakhstan. The head of Roscosmos, Russia's space agency, Igor Komarov, cited a lack of pressure in the main block of the propulsion system in the decision to abort the mission.
Kelly said the craft will fall out of orbit and re-enter the atmosphere. Russian reports indicated a re-entry possibly next week.
The capsule is expected to burn up harmlessly in the atmosphere, as is the case for all Progress carriers, once they have delivered their shipments and are filled with trash.
"The program plans for these kinds of things to happen. They're very unfortunate when they do," said Kelly, one month into a yearlong mission, which will be a record for NASA.
He added: "The important thing is hardware can be replaced."
Kornienko called it "a big concern." But he expressed "100 percent confidence" that operations will continue as planned until the next shipment arrives.
Supplying the space station is mostly handled by the United States and Russia. NASA hired SpaceX and Orbital Sciences Corp. to provide regular shipments, once the shuttle program ended in 2011.
SpaceX plans to send up a load of supplies in June; its most recent shipment arrived less than two weeks ago.
This is the second cargo ship lost in the past half year.
In October, Orbital Sciences suffered a launch explosion in Virginia that destroyed a station supply ship.
NASA officials want a six-month supply of food on the space station, but because of the Orbital Sciences accident, the reserves are down a month or so. The Japanese Space Agency also periodically sends up cargo; it is aiming for a summer shipment.
Six people currently live at the space station: two Americans, one Italian and three Russians.
Just days before Tuesday's launch, Roscosmos announced that the cargo ship held a copy of the Banner of Victory, the red flag with the Soviet hammer and sickle that was raised over the Reichstag in Berlin by victorious Soviet soldiers in 1945. It is a highly revered symbol of the victory over Nazi Germany in World War II.
But on Wednesday, the agency said the banner was already on the space station, arriving with Kelly and Kornienko in March.
Russia is planning extensive celebrations for the 70th anniversary of Victory Day on May 9.
By Marcia Dunn
A Russian supply capsule that went into an uncontrollable spin after launch was declared a total loss Wednesday, but astronauts at the International Space Station said they will get by without the delivery of fresh food, water, clothes and equipment.
"We should be OK," NASA astronaut Scott Kelly assured The Associated Press. "I think we're going to be in good shape."
Kelly and Russian Mikhail Kornienko, the space station's one-year crew members, told the AP during an interview that flight controllers had given up trying to command the cargo carrier. NASA and the Russian Space Agency later confirmed the news.
The unmanned Progress vessel, bearing 3 tons of goods, began tumbling when it reached orbit Tuesday, following launch from Kazakhstan. The head of Roscosmos, Russia's space agency, Igor Komarov, cited a lack of pressure in the main block of the propulsion system in the decision to abort the mission.
Kelly said the craft will fall out of orbit and re-enter the atmosphere. Russian reports indicated a re-entry possibly next week.
The capsule is expected to burn up harmlessly in the atmosphere, as is the case for all Progress carriers, once they have delivered their shipments and are filled with trash.
"The program plans for these kinds of things to happen. They're very unfortunate when they do," said Kelly, one month into a yearlong mission, which will be a record for NASA.
He added: "The important thing is hardware can be replaced."
Kornienko called it "a big concern." But he expressed "100 percent confidence" that operations will continue as planned until the next shipment arrives.
Supplying the space station is mostly handled by the United States and Russia. NASA hired SpaceX and Orbital Sciences Corp. to provide regular shipments, once the shuttle program ended in 2011.
SpaceX plans to send up a load of supplies in June; its most recent shipment arrived less than two weeks ago.
This is the second cargo ship lost in the past half year.
In October, Orbital Sciences suffered a launch explosion in Virginia that destroyed a station supply ship.
NASA officials want a six-month supply of food on the space station, but because of the Orbital Sciences accident, the reserves are down a month or so. The Japanese Space Agency also periodically sends up cargo; it is aiming for a summer shipment.
Six people currently live at the space station: two Americans, one Italian and three Russians.
Just days before Tuesday's launch, Roscosmos announced that the cargo ship held a copy of the Banner of Victory, the red flag with the Soviet hammer and sickle that was raised over the Reichstag in Berlin by victorious Soviet soldiers in 1945. It is a highly revered symbol of the victory over Nazi Germany in World War II.
But on Wednesday, the agency said the banner was already on the space station, arriving with Kelly and Kornienko in March.
Russia is planning extensive celebrations for the 70th anniversary of Victory Day on May 9.
Let's just fuck the environment some more...
California cuts wetland, wildlife restoration in water plan
By Scott Smith
California officials dramatically scaled back habitat restoration planned during construction of two massive tunnels under the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta to send water to farms and millions of people.
The project now calls for restoring 30,000 acres for wetland and wildlife habitat — down from 100,000 acres, California Department of Fish and Game Director Chuck Bonham told The Associated Press on Wednesday.
Bonham said the amount of land targeted for environmental improvements changed because there was "too much complexity" in the original 50-year plan, given the need for permits from federal wildlife agencies against a backdrop of uncertain future effects of climate change.
The state is entering its fourth year of drought with mandatory water restrictions for residents, and many farmers are receiving little or no surface water for irrigation from government water projects.
The original upgrades were expected to cost $8 billion, and officials said the new plans to be announced Thursday will cost about $300 million.
"We need to restore habitat in the delta," Bonham said. "We've known that for a long time. There's no dispute there. Let's get going and do it."
Environmental and conservation groups criticized the plan.
Under development for eight years, the Bay Delta Conservation Plan calls for building two underground tunnels, 40 feet across and 30 miles long, to send water from the Sacramento River around the delta. The water currently irrigates 3 million acres of farmland in the Central Valley and serves 25 million people as far south as San Diego. The projected cost of the tunnels is $15 million.
The plan, supported by Gov. Jerry Brown, is designed to stabilize water supplies for cities and farms south of the delta. But it has drawn strong opposition from delta farmers and environmentalists, who contend that the tunnels will allow saltwater from San Francisco Bay to degrade the delta's water quality and damage habitat for endangered salmon and tiny delta smelt.
State officials decided to split their plans for the delta into two parts — the construction of the tunnels and efforts to restore wildlife habitat along waterways.
"Separating them doesn't change the science," said Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, executive director of Restore the Delta and a critic of the plan. "The tunnels are going to leave us with a permanent drought in the delta."
Only about 5 percent of California's wetlands remain. Restoration projects will return at least some of the freshwater marshes and willow thickets, with trees along the water providing both food and shade to young fish, Bonham said, noting the effort will mark a "decisive break from the obstacles of the past."
"There are skeptics, of course, on anything that's bold," he said. "Make no mistake, the hardest water issue in California is about our infrastructure and our ecosystem in the delta."
The new approach doesn't come with 50-year permits, which was a goal of the previous plan because that would shield central and Southern California water agencies from future cutbacks of delta water for endangered species protection. Bonham said the state couldn't achieve the longer approvals and now is seeking permits of 10 years or less.
A spokeswoman for Westlands Water District, a large provider of water to Central Valley farmers, declined to comment until the official announcement. A representative of Metropolitan Water District, which supplies water to 19 million residents in Southern California, could not be immediately reached for comment.
Bonham said the scaled-back habitat restoration is more realistic to achieve in the remaining four years of the governor's term. He said it is unclear who will be leading the effort decades from now and what impact climate change will have on California's water picture or environmental regulations.
Bill Jennings, executive director of California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, said any water transported around the delta will only exacerbate poor water quality.
"Habitat isn't simply acreage," he said. "Habitat is adequate water and water quality."
Funds for the restoration effort will come from a variety of sources, with $75 million from a water bond voters approved in November, officials said. Between $20 million and $30 million will come from cap-and-trade funds, and the rest will come through state budget allocations.
By Scott Smith
California officials dramatically scaled back habitat restoration planned during construction of two massive tunnels under the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta to send water to farms and millions of people.
The project now calls for restoring 30,000 acres for wetland and wildlife habitat — down from 100,000 acres, California Department of Fish and Game Director Chuck Bonham told The Associated Press on Wednesday.
Bonham said the amount of land targeted for environmental improvements changed because there was "too much complexity" in the original 50-year plan, given the need for permits from federal wildlife agencies against a backdrop of uncertain future effects of climate change.
The state is entering its fourth year of drought with mandatory water restrictions for residents, and many farmers are receiving little or no surface water for irrigation from government water projects.
The original upgrades were expected to cost $8 billion, and officials said the new plans to be announced Thursday will cost about $300 million.
"We need to restore habitat in the delta," Bonham said. "We've known that for a long time. There's no dispute there. Let's get going and do it."
Environmental and conservation groups criticized the plan.
Under development for eight years, the Bay Delta Conservation Plan calls for building two underground tunnels, 40 feet across and 30 miles long, to send water from the Sacramento River around the delta. The water currently irrigates 3 million acres of farmland in the Central Valley and serves 25 million people as far south as San Diego. The projected cost of the tunnels is $15 million.
The plan, supported by Gov. Jerry Brown, is designed to stabilize water supplies for cities and farms south of the delta. But it has drawn strong opposition from delta farmers and environmentalists, who contend that the tunnels will allow saltwater from San Francisco Bay to degrade the delta's water quality and damage habitat for endangered salmon and tiny delta smelt.
State officials decided to split their plans for the delta into two parts — the construction of the tunnels and efforts to restore wildlife habitat along waterways.
"Separating them doesn't change the science," said Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, executive director of Restore the Delta and a critic of the plan. "The tunnels are going to leave us with a permanent drought in the delta."
Only about 5 percent of California's wetlands remain. Restoration projects will return at least some of the freshwater marshes and willow thickets, with trees along the water providing both food and shade to young fish, Bonham said, noting the effort will mark a "decisive break from the obstacles of the past."
"There are skeptics, of course, on anything that's bold," he said. "Make no mistake, the hardest water issue in California is about our infrastructure and our ecosystem in the delta."
The new approach doesn't come with 50-year permits, which was a goal of the previous plan because that would shield central and Southern California water agencies from future cutbacks of delta water for endangered species protection. Bonham said the state couldn't achieve the longer approvals and now is seeking permits of 10 years or less.
A spokeswoman for Westlands Water District, a large provider of water to Central Valley farmers, declined to comment until the official announcement. A representative of Metropolitan Water District, which supplies water to 19 million residents in Southern California, could not be immediately reached for comment.
Bonham said the scaled-back habitat restoration is more realistic to achieve in the remaining four years of the governor's term. He said it is unclear who will be leading the effort decades from now and what impact climate change will have on California's water picture or environmental regulations.
Bill Jennings, executive director of California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, said any water transported around the delta will only exacerbate poor water quality.
"Habitat isn't simply acreage," he said. "Habitat is adequate water and water quality."
Funds for the restoration effort will come from a variety of sources, with $75 million from a water bond voters approved in November, officials said. Between $20 million and $30 million will come from cap-and-trade funds, and the rest will come through state budget allocations.
Martian Beach...
These small spherules on the Martian surface are near Fram Crater, visited by NASA's Mars Exploration Rover Opportunity during April 2004. The area shown is 1.2 inches (3 centimeters) across.
Polar Cap on Pluto
NASA’s New Horizons Detects Surface Features, Possible Polar Cap on Pluto
For the first time, images from NASA’s New Horizons spacecraft are revealing bright and dark regions on the surface of faraway Pluto – the primary target of the New Horizons close flyby in mid-July.
The images were captured in early to mid-April from within 70 million miles (113 million kilometers), using the telescopic Long-Range Reconnaissance Imager (LORRI) camera on New Horizons. A technique called image deconvolution sharpens the raw, unprocessed images beamed back to Earth. New Horizons scientists interpreted the data to reveal the dwarf planet has broad surface markings – some bright, some dark – including a bright area at one pole that may be a polar cap.
“As we approach the Pluto system we are starting to see intriguing features such as a bright region near Pluto’s visible pole, starting the great scientific adventure to understand this enigmatic celestial object,” says John Grunsfeld, associate administrator for NASA’s Science Mission Directorate in Washington. “As we get closer, the excitement is building in our quest to unravel the mysteries of Pluto using data from New Horizons."
Also captured in the images is Pluto’s largest moon, Charon, rotating in its 6.4-day long orbit. The exposure times used to create this image set – a tenth of a second – were too short for the camera to detect Pluto’s four much smaller and fainter moons.
Since it was discovered in 1930, Pluto has remained an enigma. It orbits our sun more than 3 billion miles (about 5 billion kilometers) from Earth, and researchers have struggled to discern any details about its surface. These latest New Horizons images allow the mission science team to detect clear differences in brightness across Pluto’s surface as it rotates.
“After traveling more than nine years through space, it’s stunning to see Pluto, literally a dot of light as seen from Earth, becoming a real place right before our eyes,” said Alan Stern, New Horizons principal investigator at Southwest Research Institute in Boulder, Colorado. “These incredible images are the first in which we can begin to see detail on Pluto, and they are already showing us that Pluto has a complex surface.”
The images the spacecraft returns will dramatically improve as New Horizons speeds closer to its July rendezvous with Pluto.
“We can only imagine what surprises will be revealed when New Horizons passes approximately 7,800 miles (12,500 kilometers) above Pluto’s surface this summer,” said Hal Weaver, the mission’s project scientist at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (APL) in Laurel, Maryland.
APL designed, built, and operates the New Horizons spacecraft, and manages the mission for NASA’s Science Mission Directorate. SwRI leads the science team, payload operations and encounter science planning. New Horizons is part of the New Frontiers Program managed by NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama.
 |
| Pluto and its moon Charon, as imaged by New Horizons LORRI camera |
The images were captured in early to mid-April from within 70 million miles (113 million kilometers), using the telescopic Long-Range Reconnaissance Imager (LORRI) camera on New Horizons. A technique called image deconvolution sharpens the raw, unprocessed images beamed back to Earth. New Horizons scientists interpreted the data to reveal the dwarf planet has broad surface markings – some bright, some dark – including a bright area at one pole that may be a polar cap.
“As we approach the Pluto system we are starting to see intriguing features such as a bright region near Pluto’s visible pole, starting the great scientific adventure to understand this enigmatic celestial object,” says John Grunsfeld, associate administrator for NASA’s Science Mission Directorate in Washington. “As we get closer, the excitement is building in our quest to unravel the mysteries of Pluto using data from New Horizons."
Also captured in the images is Pluto’s largest moon, Charon, rotating in its 6.4-day long orbit. The exposure times used to create this image set – a tenth of a second – were too short for the camera to detect Pluto’s four much smaller and fainter moons.
Since it was discovered in 1930, Pluto has remained an enigma. It orbits our sun more than 3 billion miles (about 5 billion kilometers) from Earth, and researchers have struggled to discern any details about its surface. These latest New Horizons images allow the mission science team to detect clear differences in brightness across Pluto’s surface as it rotates.
“After traveling more than nine years through space, it’s stunning to see Pluto, literally a dot of light as seen from Earth, becoming a real place right before our eyes,” said Alan Stern, New Horizons principal investigator at Southwest Research Institute in Boulder, Colorado. “These incredible images are the first in which we can begin to see detail on Pluto, and they are already showing us that Pluto has a complex surface.”
The images the spacecraft returns will dramatically improve as New Horizons speeds closer to its July rendezvous with Pluto.
“We can only imagine what surprises will be revealed when New Horizons passes approximately 7,800 miles (12,500 kilometers) above Pluto’s surface this summer,” said Hal Weaver, the mission’s project scientist at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (APL) in Laurel, Maryland.
APL designed, built, and operates the New Horizons spacecraft, and manages the mission for NASA’s Science Mission Directorate. SwRI leads the science team, payload operations and encounter science planning. New Horizons is part of the New Frontiers Program managed by NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama.
April 29, 2015
Dear Lobbyists...
What Rules Apply When Members of Congress Date Lobbyists?
By Hannah Hess
Confronted with questions about how his relationship with an aviation industry lobbyist might impact his chairmanship of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Rep. Bill Shuster, R-Pa., said he has “gone above and beyond what the rules require, what the law requires to make sure that we’re doing things appropriately.”
“I’ve been very transparent,” Shuster said Tuesday at a National Journal event, describing his romantic involvement with Shelley Rubino, vice president for global government affairs at Airlines for America, as “a personal and private relationship” that complies with House rules and federal law. “I know a lot of people that are lobbyists in this town but, again, I think we can do these things as professionals,” he added.
One obvious consideration for a member dating a lobbyist is the House gift rule. Shuster succeeded his father, Bud, who chaired the same committee. The elder Shuster faced his own controversy related to those rules in his relationship with a transportation industry lobbyist.
The House Ethics Committee has established detailed guidelines on gifts ranging from tangible items to services, including tickets, meals and lodging. Members are permitted to accept gifts of personal friendship. But a gift worth more than $250 must be approved by the committee — in writing — before a member may accept the gift under the personal friendship exception.
Similarly, the Code of Ethics for Government Service admonishes every government employee, “Never discriminate unfairly by the dispensing of special favors or privileges to anyone, whether for remuneration or not; and never accept for [oneself] or [one’s] family, favors or benefits under circumstances which might be construed by reasonable persons as influencing the performance of his governmental duties.”
Complicating the matters for Shuster, his committee is working on an overhaul of the Federal Aviation Administration. The agency’s funding runs out Sept. 30, and reauthorization has revived debates over the federal role in overseeing commercial aspects of airline operations, such as air traffic control.
When it comes to regulations and codes of conduct, the House Ethics Manual has clear instructions for members who are married or immediately related to lobbyists, but it’s less clear on other close relationships, such as romances. House rules prohibit all staff employed by that member, whether in a personal, committee or leadership office, from making any lobbying contact with the spouse, under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995.
“Special caution must be exercised when the spouse of a Member or staff person, or any other immediate family member, is a lobbyist. At a minimum, such an official should not permit the spouse to lobby either him- or herself or any of his or her subordinates,” the manual states.
Shuster told Politico, which reported news of the relationship, that his office has a policy against Rubino lobbying his office, including himself and his staff. But the report points out that A4A has lobbied other members on legislation that Shuster personally introduced, and picked up Shuster’s language on certain issues.
The reports do not appear to have shaken Speaker John A. Boehner’s confidence in Shuster. During an April 23 press conference, the Ohio Republican said he was “very comfortable that proper procedures were put in place to avoid a public or professional conflict of interest.”
Shuster has never thought of recusing himself from aviation, he said during the Thursday event. “I think people in this town know my integrity level. I’m going to be at the table. I’ve got a lot of stakeholders. I guarantee you everybody’s going to walk away from this deal hopefully saying, ‘Well, it’s pretty good … It’s not perfect.'”
The House Ethics Committee declined to comment on rules related to members dating lobbyists.
A formal probe into Kentucky Republican Ed Whitfield’s office marks the third time congressional investigators have launched an investigative subcommittee on one of the murkiest subjects in the ethics manual: financial conflicts of interest. On March 27, the committee announced that its 10 members have voted unanimously to form an investigative subcommittee to determine whether Whitfield violated any law, rule or regulation with respect to ties to his lobbyist wife, Constance Harriman Whitfield.
By Hannah Hess
Confronted with questions about how his relationship with an aviation industry lobbyist might impact his chairmanship of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Rep. Bill Shuster, R-Pa., said he has “gone above and beyond what the rules require, what the law requires to make sure that we’re doing things appropriately.”
“I’ve been very transparent,” Shuster said Tuesday at a National Journal event, describing his romantic involvement with Shelley Rubino, vice president for global government affairs at Airlines for America, as “a personal and private relationship” that complies with House rules and federal law. “I know a lot of people that are lobbyists in this town but, again, I think we can do these things as professionals,” he added.
One obvious consideration for a member dating a lobbyist is the House gift rule. Shuster succeeded his father, Bud, who chaired the same committee. The elder Shuster faced his own controversy related to those rules in his relationship with a transportation industry lobbyist.
The House Ethics Committee has established detailed guidelines on gifts ranging from tangible items to services, including tickets, meals and lodging. Members are permitted to accept gifts of personal friendship. But a gift worth more than $250 must be approved by the committee — in writing — before a member may accept the gift under the personal friendship exception.
Similarly, the Code of Ethics for Government Service admonishes every government employee, “Never discriminate unfairly by the dispensing of special favors or privileges to anyone, whether for remuneration or not; and never accept for [oneself] or [one’s] family, favors or benefits under circumstances which might be construed by reasonable persons as influencing the performance of his governmental duties.”
Complicating the matters for Shuster, his committee is working on an overhaul of the Federal Aviation Administration. The agency’s funding runs out Sept. 30, and reauthorization has revived debates over the federal role in overseeing commercial aspects of airline operations, such as air traffic control.
When it comes to regulations and codes of conduct, the House Ethics Manual has clear instructions for members who are married or immediately related to lobbyists, but it’s less clear on other close relationships, such as romances. House rules prohibit all staff employed by that member, whether in a personal, committee or leadership office, from making any lobbying contact with the spouse, under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995.
“Special caution must be exercised when the spouse of a Member or staff person, or any other immediate family member, is a lobbyist. At a minimum, such an official should not permit the spouse to lobby either him- or herself or any of his or her subordinates,” the manual states.
Shuster told Politico, which reported news of the relationship, that his office has a policy against Rubino lobbying his office, including himself and his staff. But the report points out that A4A has lobbied other members on legislation that Shuster personally introduced, and picked up Shuster’s language on certain issues.
The reports do not appear to have shaken Speaker John A. Boehner’s confidence in Shuster. During an April 23 press conference, the Ohio Republican said he was “very comfortable that proper procedures were put in place to avoid a public or professional conflict of interest.”
Shuster has never thought of recusing himself from aviation, he said during the Thursday event. “I think people in this town know my integrity level. I’m going to be at the table. I’ve got a lot of stakeholders. I guarantee you everybody’s going to walk away from this deal hopefully saying, ‘Well, it’s pretty good … It’s not perfect.'”
The House Ethics Committee declined to comment on rules related to members dating lobbyists.
A formal probe into Kentucky Republican Ed Whitfield’s office marks the third time congressional investigators have launched an investigative subcommittee on one of the murkiest subjects in the ethics manual: financial conflicts of interest. On March 27, the committee announced that its 10 members have voted unanimously to form an investigative subcommittee to determine whether Whitfield violated any law, rule or regulation with respect to ties to his lobbyist wife, Constance Harriman Whitfield.
Become Chairman and the money flows and flows....
Arms makers change tune on John McCain donations
The defense industry ponies up despite its testy relationship.
By Jeremy Herb
John McCain has long railed against what he calls the “military-industrial-congressional complex,” taking aim at defense companies and their supporters in Congress for pushing what he considers ill-conceived and costly weapons programs.
The nation’s arms makers have mostly returned the favor, refusing to give him the kind of campaign cash they have lavished on other top defense lawmakers.
But that was before McCain took over as chairman of the Armed Services Committee earlier this year. Defense industry political action committees have given McCain nearly as much money in the first three months of this year as they did all of last year, when he ranked No. 190 among all members of Congress in defense industry donations, according to a POLITICO review.
While the overall numbers are relatively small — $66, 000 so far this year — they dwarf his earlier take from industry and are seen as the start of a new trend as the-78-year-old lawmaker builds a new campaign chest for what could be a difficult re-election campaign..
“It’s a matter of necessity: He’s the chairman,” said one defense lobbyist, who requested anonymity to discuss industry political strategies. “I don’t think they’ve been as aggressive as they can yet … I’m sure it’s coming.”
McCain’s PAC contributions this year, from defense giants such as Raytheon, Boeing and General Dynamics, are on par with those received by his House counterpart, Armed Services Chairman Mac Thornberry (R-Texas), who collected $75,000 from defense PACs in the first three months of the year.
The uptick in defense cash is explained in part by his fundraising apparatus kicking into high gear for the first time since his 2008 presidential bid. But for McCain, who has also been a leading advocate for campaign finance reform and reducing the role of money in politics, the cozier relationship with defense PACs makes for something of an awkward alliance.
Supporters say he’s the same man who declared in 2011 that frequent cost overruns, schedule delays, and failures to deliver as promised are “a massive windfall for [the defense] industry. But for the taxpayer and the warfighter, it has been an absolute recipe for disaster.” They say he still aims to kill troubled projects and rewrite the laws for how the Pentagon pays its contractors.
Indeed, McCain says he is not changing his approach.
“We’ve raised a lot more money from everybody, obviously, because I haven’t had to do that in a long time,” he told POLITICO.
Yet the contributions signal a new willingness for the defense industry to seek his favor, as he plays a key role in pushing for more defense spending than what is allowed under the 2011 Budget Control Act and is also drawing up a new plan of his own to reform the Pentagon’s weapons acquisition process.
With the gavel, McCain spearheads the Senate version of the National Defense Authorization Act, which sets policy and could signal cuts — or increases — to specific Pentagon programs. And he’s said he plans to make acquisition reform a priority in the new bill, stressing accountability for cost overruns as a key part of that effort.
The contributions highlight the industry’s desire to impact those deliberations.
“I don’t think the industry is expecting any favors from McCain, but they recognize that he has huge power over their fate,” said Loren Thompson, a defense industry consultant.
Nearly all of the largest defense contractor PACs gave to McCain in the first quarter, including $9,000 from Raytheon, $9,000 from Northrop Grumman, $5,000 from General Dynamics, and $2,500 each from Boeing and BAE Systems.
McCain also received donations from at least a dozen other defense PACs, including $5,000 each from Textron, AM General, Orbital ATK and Emergent Biosolutions, as well as $2,600 from Austal USA.
Defense CEOs also separately donated to McCain in the first quarter.
Northrop Grumman CEO Wes Bush gave $5,200. AM General President and CEO Charles Hall donated $2,000. And Jeffrey Immelt, chairman and CEO of General Electric, which has a defense sector, donated $5,400.
In addition, McCain received more than $22,000 in individual donations from Raytheon employees in March, including $5,400 from CEO Thomas Kennedy. Raytheon’s missile systems business is based in Tucson, Arizona.
Over the years, many of those contractors have been on the receiving end of McCain’s pointed criticisms of the defense industry.
Austal USA, for instance, is one of the two prime contractors for the Littoral Combat Ship, a program that has been in McCain’s cross hairs for years.
McCain fired a warning shot at shipbuilders earlier this year when he proposed repealing the 1920 Jones Act that aids the U.S. shipbuilding industry.
McCain’s campaign has also conducted more outreach to the defense industry, according to several industry officials. Defense PACs give to hundreds of candidates each year, spreading out their donations across a wide swath of candidates, but often it’s only after a campaign reaches out to seek contributions.
In total, McCain collected $1.6 million in campaign funds the first quarter.
The defense industry ponies up despite its testy relationship.
By Jeremy Herb
John McCain has long railed against what he calls the “military-industrial-congressional complex,” taking aim at defense companies and their supporters in Congress for pushing what he considers ill-conceived and costly weapons programs.
The nation’s arms makers have mostly returned the favor, refusing to give him the kind of campaign cash they have lavished on other top defense lawmakers.
But that was before McCain took over as chairman of the Armed Services Committee earlier this year. Defense industry political action committees have given McCain nearly as much money in the first three months of this year as they did all of last year, when he ranked No. 190 among all members of Congress in defense industry donations, according to a POLITICO review.
While the overall numbers are relatively small — $66, 000 so far this year — they dwarf his earlier take from industry and are seen as the start of a new trend as the-78-year-old lawmaker builds a new campaign chest for what could be a difficult re-election campaign..
“It’s a matter of necessity: He’s the chairman,” said one defense lobbyist, who requested anonymity to discuss industry political strategies. “I don’t think they’ve been as aggressive as they can yet … I’m sure it’s coming.”
McCain’s PAC contributions this year, from defense giants such as Raytheon, Boeing and General Dynamics, are on par with those received by his House counterpart, Armed Services Chairman Mac Thornberry (R-Texas), who collected $75,000 from defense PACs in the first three months of the year.
The uptick in defense cash is explained in part by his fundraising apparatus kicking into high gear for the first time since his 2008 presidential bid. But for McCain, who has also been a leading advocate for campaign finance reform and reducing the role of money in politics, the cozier relationship with defense PACs makes for something of an awkward alliance.
Supporters say he’s the same man who declared in 2011 that frequent cost overruns, schedule delays, and failures to deliver as promised are “a massive windfall for [the defense] industry. But for the taxpayer and the warfighter, it has been an absolute recipe for disaster.” They say he still aims to kill troubled projects and rewrite the laws for how the Pentagon pays its contractors.
Indeed, McCain says he is not changing his approach.
“We’ve raised a lot more money from everybody, obviously, because I haven’t had to do that in a long time,” he told POLITICO.
Yet the contributions signal a new willingness for the defense industry to seek his favor, as he plays a key role in pushing for more defense spending than what is allowed under the 2011 Budget Control Act and is also drawing up a new plan of his own to reform the Pentagon’s weapons acquisition process.
With the gavel, McCain spearheads the Senate version of the National Defense Authorization Act, which sets policy and could signal cuts — or increases — to specific Pentagon programs. And he’s said he plans to make acquisition reform a priority in the new bill, stressing accountability for cost overruns as a key part of that effort.
The contributions highlight the industry’s desire to impact those deliberations.
“I don’t think the industry is expecting any favors from McCain, but they recognize that he has huge power over their fate,” said Loren Thompson, a defense industry consultant.
Nearly all of the largest defense contractor PACs gave to McCain in the first quarter, including $9,000 from Raytheon, $9,000 from Northrop Grumman, $5,000 from General Dynamics, and $2,500 each from Boeing and BAE Systems.
McCain also received donations from at least a dozen other defense PACs, including $5,000 each from Textron, AM General, Orbital ATK and Emergent Biosolutions, as well as $2,600 from Austal USA.
Defense CEOs also separately donated to McCain in the first quarter.
Northrop Grumman CEO Wes Bush gave $5,200. AM General President and CEO Charles Hall donated $2,000. And Jeffrey Immelt, chairman and CEO of General Electric, which has a defense sector, donated $5,400.
In addition, McCain received more than $22,000 in individual donations from Raytheon employees in March, including $5,400 from CEO Thomas Kennedy. Raytheon’s missile systems business is based in Tucson, Arizona.
Over the years, many of those contractors have been on the receiving end of McCain’s pointed criticisms of the defense industry.
Austal USA, for instance, is one of the two prime contractors for the Littoral Combat Ship, a program that has been in McCain’s cross hairs for years.
McCain fired a warning shot at shipbuilders earlier this year when he proposed repealing the 1920 Jones Act that aids the U.S. shipbuilding industry.
McCain’s campaign has also conducted more outreach to the defense industry, according to several industry officials. Defense PACs give to hundreds of candidates each year, spreading out their donations across a wide swath of candidates, but often it’s only after a campaign reaches out to seek contributions.
In total, McCain collected $1.6 million in campaign funds the first quarter.
Gay... D.C. lawyer... Wedding... Ted Cruz....
This D.C. lawyer argued against gay marriage, then planned his daughter’s gay wedding. Now, he’s set to host a Cruz fundraiser.
By Colby Itkowitz
On the same day the Supreme Court heard oral arguments about same-sex marriage, the D.C. lawyer who defended a ban on gay marriage before the highest court in 2013 was spotted as the host of a fundraiser for presidential aspirant Ted Cruz on Wednesday.
Seems like a good way for Cruz to restore his street cred with the Christian-conservative base after attending a fundraiser hosted by two gay New York businessmen on Monday.
Maybe, except Charles Cooper and his wife aren’t as ardent on the issue as one might expect.
Last June, they celebrated their daughter’s same sex wedding. The lawyer has said his views are evolving – a popular D.C. term that sounds softer than, “I changed my mind.”
[Book: Lawyer who defended Calif. gay marriage ban plans daughter’s gay wedding]
Cooper declined to talk to us about the Cruz party to be held at his downtown penthouse apartment in D.C.
Cruz’s New York hosts have pleaded ignorance over the depths of Cruz’s anti-gay marriage stance, and begged forgiveness from fellow gay activists.
[‘Ignorant’ gay man sorry for hosting Ted Cruz — but may have done it for Israel]
Cruz’s position is not evolving. He recently introduced legislation for a constitutional definition of marriage and another bill to bar federal courts from striking down state gay marriage bans.
He put out a statement Tuesday affirming his views: “This effort to redefine marriage by judicial fiat poses a serious threat to the religious liberty for those who embrace traditional marriage.”
Of course evolution is a slow process. And Cruz showed signs of softening when he told the New York crowd that – not unlike his host Wednesday – he’d “love them just as much” if one of his daughters was gay.
By Colby Itkowitz
On the same day the Supreme Court heard oral arguments about same-sex marriage, the D.C. lawyer who defended a ban on gay marriage before the highest court in 2013 was spotted as the host of a fundraiser for presidential aspirant Ted Cruz on Wednesday.
Seems like a good way for Cruz to restore his street cred with the Christian-conservative base after attending a fundraiser hosted by two gay New York businessmen on Monday.
Maybe, except Charles Cooper and his wife aren’t as ardent on the issue as one might expect.
Last June, they celebrated their daughter’s same sex wedding. The lawyer has said his views are evolving – a popular D.C. term that sounds softer than, “I changed my mind.”
[Book: Lawyer who defended Calif. gay marriage ban plans daughter’s gay wedding]
Cooper declined to talk to us about the Cruz party to be held at his downtown penthouse apartment in D.C.
Cruz’s New York hosts have pleaded ignorance over the depths of Cruz’s anti-gay marriage stance, and begged forgiveness from fellow gay activists.
[‘Ignorant’ gay man sorry for hosting Ted Cruz — but may have done it for Israel]
Cruz’s position is not evolving. He recently introduced legislation for a constitutional definition of marriage and another bill to bar federal courts from striking down state gay marriage bans.
He put out a statement Tuesday affirming his views: “This effort to redefine marriage by judicial fiat poses a serious threat to the religious liberty for those who embrace traditional marriage.”
Of course evolution is a slow process. And Cruz showed signs of softening when he told the New York crowd that – not unlike his host Wednesday – he’d “love them just as much” if one of his daughters was gay.
Lets not be ethical Mr. Bush...
Jeb Bush's astonishing money machine: brilliant or dodgy?
Jeb Bush set up a massive super PAC that will go on autopilot the moment he declares his candidacy for 2016. Critics say it's a move that runs afoul of the spirit and even the letter of campaign finance laws.
By Mark Trumbull
News of a record early fundraising total for Jeb Bush is remarkable not just for the sums of money involved, but also for how those sums have been raised – in ways that could either revolutionize campaign strategy or run afoul of federal election law.
The former Florida governor has sought to position himself as being on the acceptable side of a fuzzy legal line, using his status as a not-yet-declared presidential candidate to raise funds without any contribution caps for donors.
But some watchdog groups allege that he has already violated not just the spirit, but also the letter of a 2002 law that aims to limit what donors can give and candidates can spend in formal campaigns.
The legal and ethical ambiguity is heightened because the Federal Election Commission (FEC), tasked with enforcing election laws, is deeply divided along party lines on the issues at stake.
Mr. Bush’s strategy, for now at least, is a financially winning one. Speaking to 350 top donors at a Miami Beach event Sunday, he said he has raked in more money in the first 100 days of a possible run than any Republican ever. (The exact amount, not yet made public, could by some accounts reach $100 million.)
All this appears to be a prelude to what might be called an “autopilot campaign.” And Bush looks set to delegate a stunning level of responsibility – key roles in advertising and more – to his political-action committee (PAC).
The boldness of this: These kinds of super PACs, by law, are supposed to remain wholly separate from the candidate and his or her campaign organization.
“We are in a new era,” says Viveca Novak, spokeswoman for the Center for Responsive Politics, a research group in Washington that tracks the flow of money in US politics. “There were super PACs in 2012, but this is the first presidential election where people have openly talked about farming out elements of their campaigns to outside groups.”
And it isn’t just the Bush organization that’s pushing down this new track. Other presidential hopefuls, such as Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R), also have independent groups that can raise unlimited sums – but must ultimately operate at an arm’s-length distance from the candidate they support.
Candidates will still have traditional campaign committees, playing their own vital roles (and subject to contribution limits of $2,700 per donor).
But, in a glimpse of how things are shifting, a recent report by The Associated Press hinted at Bush’s goals for his super PAC, which is called Right to Rise. Citing unnamed Republicans and donors familiar with the Bush team’s thinking, the article said the Bush campaign plans to put Right to Rise “in charge of the brunt of the biggest expense of electing Bush: television advertising and direct mail.”
The AP report added that Right to Rise could also play a prominent role in other activities (such as get-out-the-vote efforts), while outspending the formal wing of the Bush campaign during the primary election season.
As the lines between official campaigns and independent groups blur in the 2016 race, the trend exposes candidates, including Bush, to possible legal challenges.
Already, two election watchdog groups have filed formal complaints with the FEC about Bush and several other likely candidates.
“Publicly denying that they are candidates does not exempt these presidential hopefuls from federal election laws passed by Congress to keep the White House off the auction block,” Paul Ryan of the Campaign Legal Center said recently in filing the appeal for action.
The complaints allege that Bush, Governor Walker, and former Sen. Rick Santorum (R) of Pennsylvania have actually crossed the threshold of candidacy by steps such as referring to themselves publicly as candidates or amassing campaign funds that will be spent after they formally declare.
Fred Wertheimer of the group Democracy 21, which joined in filing the complaints, argues also that the 2002 campaign law prohibits an outside group from receiving unlimited contributions if a candidate or his proxies are involved in “establishing, financing, maintaining or controlling” the group.
In many cases, super PACs are run by people with close ties to the candidates or prospective candidates. Right to Rise, according to news reports, may end up being run by Mike Murphy, a longtime Republican strategist and ad consultant for politicians including Bush.
Mr. Wertheimer says in an online commentary that super PACs backing Walker and Sen. Rand Paul (R) of Kentucky are being run by their former campaign managers.
The opposing view is that there’s nothing wrong with surrogates running super PACs, so long as they keep their distance from official candidates. And for now, Bush is operating on the assumption that until he officially declares his candidacy, he’s free to raise unlimited sums and help to plot what Right to Rise will do during the campaign.
The FEC’s history doesn’t suggest any imminent crackdown on Bush or other candidates. No more than half the commission’s six members can be from the same political party. Deadlock has been the norm lately on issues such as the acceptable role of super PACs.
The Justice Department took one action earlier this year on illegal coordination between candidates and super PACs, in a case against Republican campaign manager Tyler Eugene Harber of Virginia in a 2012 House race.
In many ways, this growing reliance on super PACs is the logical outcome of the current legal climate for campaigns. The fact that outside money faces no caps gives candidates, donors, and political activists an incentive to emphasize that kind of fundraising and spending.
Congress passed new limits on money in politics in 2002, but the US Supreme Court ruled in 2010 that portions of the law were an unconstitutional infringement on First Amendment free-speech rights. Specifically, the Citizens United and SpeechNow rulings validated the idea that political speech by independent people or groups can't be constrained.
The super PAC era grew from these court rulings and from the emergence of donors willing and able to write million-dollar checks. Traditional campaign committees and small donors are far from irrelevant, but the role of outside money is huge and growing.
Jeb Bush set up a massive super PAC that will go on autopilot the moment he declares his candidacy for 2016. Critics say it's a move that runs afoul of the spirit and even the letter of campaign finance laws.
By Mark Trumbull
News of a record early fundraising total for Jeb Bush is remarkable not just for the sums of money involved, but also for how those sums have been raised – in ways that could either revolutionize campaign strategy or run afoul of federal election law.
The former Florida governor has sought to position himself as being on the acceptable side of a fuzzy legal line, using his status as a not-yet-declared presidential candidate to raise funds without any contribution caps for donors.
But some watchdog groups allege that he has already violated not just the spirit, but also the letter of a 2002 law that aims to limit what donors can give and candidates can spend in formal campaigns.
The legal and ethical ambiguity is heightened because the Federal Election Commission (FEC), tasked with enforcing election laws, is deeply divided along party lines on the issues at stake.
Mr. Bush’s strategy, for now at least, is a financially winning one. Speaking to 350 top donors at a Miami Beach event Sunday, he said he has raked in more money in the first 100 days of a possible run than any Republican ever. (The exact amount, not yet made public, could by some accounts reach $100 million.)
All this appears to be a prelude to what might be called an “autopilot campaign.” And Bush looks set to delegate a stunning level of responsibility – key roles in advertising and more – to his political-action committee (PAC).
The boldness of this: These kinds of super PACs, by law, are supposed to remain wholly separate from the candidate and his or her campaign organization.
“We are in a new era,” says Viveca Novak, spokeswoman for the Center for Responsive Politics, a research group in Washington that tracks the flow of money in US politics. “There were super PACs in 2012, but this is the first presidential election where people have openly talked about farming out elements of their campaigns to outside groups.”
And it isn’t just the Bush organization that’s pushing down this new track. Other presidential hopefuls, such as Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R), also have independent groups that can raise unlimited sums – but must ultimately operate at an arm’s-length distance from the candidate they support.
Candidates will still have traditional campaign committees, playing their own vital roles (and subject to contribution limits of $2,700 per donor).
But, in a glimpse of how things are shifting, a recent report by The Associated Press hinted at Bush’s goals for his super PAC, which is called Right to Rise. Citing unnamed Republicans and donors familiar with the Bush team’s thinking, the article said the Bush campaign plans to put Right to Rise “in charge of the brunt of the biggest expense of electing Bush: television advertising and direct mail.”
The AP report added that Right to Rise could also play a prominent role in other activities (such as get-out-the-vote efforts), while outspending the formal wing of the Bush campaign during the primary election season.
As the lines between official campaigns and independent groups blur in the 2016 race, the trend exposes candidates, including Bush, to possible legal challenges.
Already, two election watchdog groups have filed formal complaints with the FEC about Bush and several other likely candidates.
“Publicly denying that they are candidates does not exempt these presidential hopefuls from federal election laws passed by Congress to keep the White House off the auction block,” Paul Ryan of the Campaign Legal Center said recently in filing the appeal for action.
The complaints allege that Bush, Governor Walker, and former Sen. Rick Santorum (R) of Pennsylvania have actually crossed the threshold of candidacy by steps such as referring to themselves publicly as candidates or amassing campaign funds that will be spent after they formally declare.
Fred Wertheimer of the group Democracy 21, which joined in filing the complaints, argues also that the 2002 campaign law prohibits an outside group from receiving unlimited contributions if a candidate or his proxies are involved in “establishing, financing, maintaining or controlling” the group.
In many cases, super PACs are run by people with close ties to the candidates or prospective candidates. Right to Rise, according to news reports, may end up being run by Mike Murphy, a longtime Republican strategist and ad consultant for politicians including Bush.
Mr. Wertheimer says in an online commentary that super PACs backing Walker and Sen. Rand Paul (R) of Kentucky are being run by their former campaign managers.
The opposing view is that there’s nothing wrong with surrogates running super PACs, so long as they keep their distance from official candidates. And for now, Bush is operating on the assumption that until he officially declares his candidacy, he’s free to raise unlimited sums and help to plot what Right to Rise will do during the campaign.
The FEC’s history doesn’t suggest any imminent crackdown on Bush or other candidates. No more than half the commission’s six members can be from the same political party. Deadlock has been the norm lately on issues such as the acceptable role of super PACs.
The Justice Department took one action earlier this year on illegal coordination between candidates and super PACs, in a case against Republican campaign manager Tyler Eugene Harber of Virginia in a 2012 House race.
In many ways, this growing reliance on super PACs is the logical outcome of the current legal climate for campaigns. The fact that outside money faces no caps gives candidates, donors, and political activists an incentive to emphasize that kind of fundraising and spending.
Congress passed new limits on money in politics in 2002, but the US Supreme Court ruled in 2010 that portions of the law were an unconstitutional infringement on First Amendment free-speech rights. Specifically, the Citizens United and SpeechNow rulings validated the idea that political speech by independent people or groups can't be constrained.
The super PAC era grew from these court rulings and from the emergence of donors willing and able to write million-dollar checks. Traditional campaign committees and small donors are far from irrelevant, but the role of outside money is huge and growing.
Lost...
How Jeb Bush Lost the Sheldon Adelson Primary
by Eliana Johnson
Most Republican presidential contenders are trying to woo GOP megadonor Sheldon Adelson, who in 2012 demonstrated his ability to bankroll a campaign almost singlehandedly when he kept former House speaker Newt Gingrich’s presidential prospects alive long after most expected him to bow out of the race.
But in the Sheldon primary, according to multiple sources, one top candidate is already a dead man. That’s former Florida governor Jeb Bush, whose aides have, for the past several months, been making overtures to Adelson in an attempt to get him to open his wallet to a Bush super PAC that is expected to raise record sums. But at this point, it looks like none of that money will come from Adelson.
“I think he’s lost the Sheldon primary,” says the leader of a top conservative group.
The bad blood between Bush and Adelson is relatively recent, and it deepened with the news that former secretary of state James Baker, a member of Bush’s foreign-policy advisory team, was set to address J Street, a left-wing pro-Israel organization founded to serve as the antithesis to the hawkish American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
J Street has routinely staked out liberal views anathema to those held by Adelson and his allies. Adelson sent word to Bush’s camp in Miami: Bush, he said, should tell Baker to cancel the speech. When Bush refused, a source describes Adelson as “rips***”; another says Adelson sent word that the move cost the Florida governor “a lot of money.”
Adelson has long pressed political candidates to move the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and to pardon Jonathan Pollard, who was convicted of spying for Israel in 1987 and remains behind bars. Gingrich, for one, pledged to move the embassy, while many, including Mitt Romney, have been non-committal on Pollard’s case.
Bush got top billing last year when he addressed the Republican Jewish Coalition’s annual spring meeting. He was the guest of honor at a dinner held in a private airport hangar, where he addressed several dozen pro-Israel donors and, according to those present, cautioned against the rise of “neo-isolationism” in Republican ranks.
The tension between Bush and Adelson doesn’t mean the candidate won’t have a chance to raise money from the rest of the pro-Israel crowd. Bush did not attend this year’s RJC leadership meeting, last weekend in Las Vegas, but several of his allies, including Mel Sembler, a top Florida bundler, and Fred Zeidman, a Houston-based fundraiser, were there. His son Jeb Bush Jr. was also in attendance, and his brother George W. Bush delivered the keynote address. Aides to the former Florida governor handed out buttons with “Jeb” emblazoned in Hebrew.
Adelson has said that he won’t make a financial commitment to any candidate for several months, until at least a handful of primary debates have taken place. So there is time for him to warm to warm to Bush, but right now, it doesn’t seem likely.
UPDATE: As spokesman for Bush’s Right to Rise PAC, Tim Miller, tells National Review, ”Governor Bush has a lifetime commitment to defending Israel, we’re proud of the support the Right to Rise PAC has from members of the RJC and will continue to try to earn the support of like-minded individuals. Gov. Bush will continue to discuss the need for American leaders who stand up for allies like Israel as he travels the country.” He also points to Bush’s statement last month that it was ”not appropriate” for Baker to address J Street, but that he was nonetheless honored to count him as an adviser.
by Eliana Johnson
Most Republican presidential contenders are trying to woo GOP megadonor Sheldon Adelson, who in 2012 demonstrated his ability to bankroll a campaign almost singlehandedly when he kept former House speaker Newt Gingrich’s presidential prospects alive long after most expected him to bow out of the race.
But in the Sheldon primary, according to multiple sources, one top candidate is already a dead man. That’s former Florida governor Jeb Bush, whose aides have, for the past several months, been making overtures to Adelson in an attempt to get him to open his wallet to a Bush super PAC that is expected to raise record sums. But at this point, it looks like none of that money will come from Adelson.
“I think he’s lost the Sheldon primary,” says the leader of a top conservative group.
The bad blood between Bush and Adelson is relatively recent, and it deepened with the news that former secretary of state James Baker, a member of Bush’s foreign-policy advisory team, was set to address J Street, a left-wing pro-Israel organization founded to serve as the antithesis to the hawkish American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
J Street has routinely staked out liberal views anathema to those held by Adelson and his allies. Adelson sent word to Bush’s camp in Miami: Bush, he said, should tell Baker to cancel the speech. When Bush refused, a source describes Adelson as “rips***”; another says Adelson sent word that the move cost the Florida governor “a lot of money.”
Adelson has long pressed political candidates to move the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and to pardon Jonathan Pollard, who was convicted of spying for Israel in 1987 and remains behind bars. Gingrich, for one, pledged to move the embassy, while many, including Mitt Romney, have been non-committal on Pollard’s case.
Bush got top billing last year when he addressed the Republican Jewish Coalition’s annual spring meeting. He was the guest of honor at a dinner held in a private airport hangar, where he addressed several dozen pro-Israel donors and, according to those present, cautioned against the rise of “neo-isolationism” in Republican ranks.
The tension between Bush and Adelson doesn’t mean the candidate won’t have a chance to raise money from the rest of the pro-Israel crowd. Bush did not attend this year’s RJC leadership meeting, last weekend in Las Vegas, but several of his allies, including Mel Sembler, a top Florida bundler, and Fred Zeidman, a Houston-based fundraiser, were there. His son Jeb Bush Jr. was also in attendance, and his brother George W. Bush delivered the keynote address. Aides to the former Florida governor handed out buttons with “Jeb” emblazoned in Hebrew.
Adelson has said that he won’t make a financial commitment to any candidate for several months, until at least a handful of primary debates have taken place. So there is time for him to warm to warm to Bush, but right now, it doesn’t seem likely.
UPDATE: As spokesman for Bush’s Right to Rise PAC, Tim Miller, tells National Review, ”Governor Bush has a lifetime commitment to defending Israel, we’re proud of the support the Right to Rise PAC has from members of the RJC and will continue to try to earn the support of like-minded individuals. Gov. Bush will continue to discuss the need for American leaders who stand up for allies like Israel as he travels the country.” He also points to Bush’s statement last month that it was ”not appropriate” for Baker to address J Street, but that he was nonetheless honored to count him as an adviser.
Disclosure
CORPORATE REFORM COALITION
More Than 55 Organizations and Investors Call on the Securities and Exchange Commission to Require Disclosure of Corporate Political Spending
Groups Send Letter to Mary Jo White Demanding Action for Investors
WASHINGTON, D.C. – For the sake of a functioning and accountable corporate democracy, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) should require disclosure of corporate political spending, 57 organizations and investors said in a letter (PDF) today. The groups ranged from environmental groups to asset managers to religious organizations.
“The resources of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) are required to write numerous rules, police the markets, and react to changes in company structure,” the letter stated. “To enact its mandate to protect investors, the SEC needs to require material disclosures of critical business information for investors, and this includes being able to react quickly to the changing practices and priorities of corporate entities.”
The increased amount of spending in politics by corporate entities has come in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision. A petition to the SEC for rulemaking on disclosure of this spending has received more than 1.2 million comments in support – a record for that agency.
“Without adequate disclosure of corporate political spending, shareholders and investors have little means to hold corporate directors accountable and to safeguard their investments,” the letter says. “And investors understand this; a recent survey of members of the CFA Institute, an association of professional investors, found that 60% of members believe that if corporations are able to spend money in elections, they should be required to disclose the spending.
“Without an SEC rule requiring full disclosure for all public companies, shareholders have no uniform means to monitor these activities, or assess the risks of corporate political spending. Voluntary disclosure has led to a patchwork of understanding which makes it impossible for investors to manage, and potentially mitigate, the full range of risks presented by corporate political spending.”
The Corporate Reform Coalition maintains that the SEC must obey its mandate to protect investors and heed this request for action.
More Than 55 Organizations and Investors Call on the Securities and Exchange Commission to Require Disclosure of Corporate Political Spending
Groups Send Letter to Mary Jo White Demanding Action for Investors
WASHINGTON, D.C. – For the sake of a functioning and accountable corporate democracy, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) should require disclosure of corporate political spending, 57 organizations and investors said in a letter (PDF) today. The groups ranged from environmental groups to asset managers to religious organizations.
“The resources of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) are required to write numerous rules, police the markets, and react to changes in company structure,” the letter stated. “To enact its mandate to protect investors, the SEC needs to require material disclosures of critical business information for investors, and this includes being able to react quickly to the changing practices and priorities of corporate entities.”
The increased amount of spending in politics by corporate entities has come in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision. A petition to the SEC for rulemaking on disclosure of this spending has received more than 1.2 million comments in support – a record for that agency.
“Without adequate disclosure of corporate political spending, shareholders and investors have little means to hold corporate directors accountable and to safeguard their investments,” the letter says. “And investors understand this; a recent survey of members of the CFA Institute, an association of professional investors, found that 60% of members believe that if corporations are able to spend money in elections, they should be required to disclose the spending.
“Without an SEC rule requiring full disclosure for all public companies, shareholders have no uniform means to monitor these activities, or assess the risks of corporate political spending. Voluntary disclosure has led to a patchwork of understanding which makes it impossible for investors to manage, and potentially mitigate, the full range of risks presented by corporate political spending.”
The Corporate Reform Coalition maintains that the SEC must obey its mandate to protect investors and heed this request for action.
Expand it
Social Security: Expand it, don't cut it
Sen. Bernie Sanders
Republicans are trying to convince voters that Social Security is in crisis. Let's not kid ourselves: We do have an urgent problem on our hands, but it's not Social Security. Millions of middle-class Americans are facing a retirement crisis as a result of inadequate income and growing wealth inequality. Social Security isn't the problem. It's an essential part of the solution.
How did this crisis develop? There was a time when traditional corporate pension plans paid a fixed income after retirement, but today only one in five working Americans has that kind of plan.
Today many households live from paycheck to paycheck, according to surveys, and more than half of all Americans have less than $10,000 in savings. How can people save for retirement under these conditions? Economists used to describe retirement security as a "three-legged stool" made up of savings, employee pensions and Social Security. With two of those legs cut off, why are some politicians sawing away at the third?
The truth is that Social Security is a success story. Without it, nearly half of seniors, and 1 million children, would be living in poverty today. It's financially self-sufficient, forbidden by law from adding to the federal deficit, and its operating costs are far below those of private-sector retirement plans.
So why are politicians trying to undermine public trust in it? Because we have another crisis on our hands: a crisis of democracy. Unfortunately, some politicians would rather respond to the concerns of the wealthy and powerful than address the needs of the middle class. That's not surprising, of course, since our campaign finance system encourages it.
To be fair, not all of the opposition is cynical. Some politicians have an ideological problem with Social Security, because they hate government. Social Security is a government program that works very well and is extremely popular with the public. That threatens their philosophy — so they claim that it's "going broke" instead.
That's not true. The retirement trust fund has $2.8 trillion in surplus, enough to pay full benefits for 18 years (and three-quarters of benefits afterwards). Why not longer? In large part, because income inequality — the huge gap between rich and poor — has soared, hurting millions of Americans and all but wiping out the middle class.
Income inequality has also hurt Social Security's finances, by leaving most of the wealthiest Americans' earnings above the cut-off point for the payroll tax which funds it. A Wall Street CEO who makes $18 million per year pays no more in payroll tax than someone earning $118,000. If we had the same level of economic equality we enjoyed in 1983, the retirement trust find would have another $1.1 trillion on hand — and another 20 more years of solvency. Instead, that money has gone into the pockets of the wealthy.
America doesn't have a problem with "greedy geezers," to quote one Social Security adversary. It has a "Robin Hood in Reverse" problem, a problem with policies that take from working families and give to the rich.
Republicans would rather change the subject. They want to cut benefits to disabled Social Security recipients by 19 percent, rather than make a minor adjustment between Social Security's trust funds. Congress has made that adjustment 11 times, and is only blocking it now to create the false sense that Social Security has a funding problem. If they succeed, they will then look for Democrats to join them in a new "grand bargain" that cuts retiree benefits.
It's time to address our real problem — the retirement crisis — instead. In that regard, I have reintroduced legislation that would apply the payroll tax to earned income above $250,000 as well as investment income. This would allow us not only to increase benefits to meet the elderly's higher living expenses, but to extend Social Security's solvency until 2065.
That's sensible, practical — and fair. It asks those who have benefited most from wealth inequality to pay their proper share of payroll taxes. It's what the public wants, too, according to the polls.
Some millionaires won't want to do that, of course, which raises the question: Does our government exist to serve wealthy campaign contributors, or the people in whose name it governs? Congress can answer that question — by listening to the American people who want to expand Social Security, not the Wall Street millionaires who want to cut it.
Sen. Bernie Sanders
Republicans are trying to convince voters that Social Security is in crisis. Let's not kid ourselves: We do have an urgent problem on our hands, but it's not Social Security. Millions of middle-class Americans are facing a retirement crisis as a result of inadequate income and growing wealth inequality. Social Security isn't the problem. It's an essential part of the solution.
How did this crisis develop? There was a time when traditional corporate pension plans paid a fixed income after retirement, but today only one in five working Americans has that kind of plan.
Today many households live from paycheck to paycheck, according to surveys, and more than half of all Americans have less than $10,000 in savings. How can people save for retirement under these conditions? Economists used to describe retirement security as a "three-legged stool" made up of savings, employee pensions and Social Security. With two of those legs cut off, why are some politicians sawing away at the third?
The truth is that Social Security is a success story. Without it, nearly half of seniors, and 1 million children, would be living in poverty today. It's financially self-sufficient, forbidden by law from adding to the federal deficit, and its operating costs are far below those of private-sector retirement plans.
So why are politicians trying to undermine public trust in it? Because we have another crisis on our hands: a crisis of democracy. Unfortunately, some politicians would rather respond to the concerns of the wealthy and powerful than address the needs of the middle class. That's not surprising, of course, since our campaign finance system encourages it.
To be fair, not all of the opposition is cynical. Some politicians have an ideological problem with Social Security, because they hate government. Social Security is a government program that works very well and is extremely popular with the public. That threatens their philosophy — so they claim that it's "going broke" instead.
That's not true. The retirement trust fund has $2.8 trillion in surplus, enough to pay full benefits for 18 years (and three-quarters of benefits afterwards). Why not longer? In large part, because income inequality — the huge gap between rich and poor — has soared, hurting millions of Americans and all but wiping out the middle class.
Income inequality has also hurt Social Security's finances, by leaving most of the wealthiest Americans' earnings above the cut-off point for the payroll tax which funds it. A Wall Street CEO who makes $18 million per year pays no more in payroll tax than someone earning $118,000. If we had the same level of economic equality we enjoyed in 1983, the retirement trust find would have another $1.1 trillion on hand — and another 20 more years of solvency. Instead, that money has gone into the pockets of the wealthy.
America doesn't have a problem with "greedy geezers," to quote one Social Security adversary. It has a "Robin Hood in Reverse" problem, a problem with policies that take from working families and give to the rich.
Republicans would rather change the subject. They want to cut benefits to disabled Social Security recipients by 19 percent, rather than make a minor adjustment between Social Security's trust funds. Congress has made that adjustment 11 times, and is only blocking it now to create the false sense that Social Security has a funding problem. If they succeed, they will then look for Democrats to join them in a new "grand bargain" that cuts retiree benefits.
It's time to address our real problem — the retirement crisis — instead. In that regard, I have reintroduced legislation that would apply the payroll tax to earned income above $250,000 as well as investment income. This would allow us not only to increase benefits to meet the elderly's higher living expenses, but to extend Social Security's solvency until 2065.
That's sensible, practical — and fair. It asks those who have benefited most from wealth inequality to pay their proper share of payroll taxes. It's what the public wants, too, according to the polls.
Some millionaires won't want to do that, of course, which raises the question: Does our government exist to serve wealthy campaign contributors, or the people in whose name it governs? Congress can answer that question — by listening to the American people who want to expand Social Security, not the Wall Street millionaires who want to cut it.
Prez candidates on Crime...
Snapshots of How Politicians Have Evolved on Crime
By Peter Baker
A generation after presidential candidates competed to be tough on crime, a new crop of declared and presumed candidates is competing to rein in the mass incarceration of the last few decades.
A new book compiled by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University’s School of Law has collected essays by many would-be candidates from both parties about what they would do to overhaul the criminal justice system. Here’s a synopsis of their ideas:
Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey (Republican):
Proposes nonfinancial alternatives to bail so low-level offenders can get out of jail while waiting for trial, as he did in his state. Advocates treatment as an alternative for nonviolent drug offenders and barring employers from checking criminal backgrounds until after a first interview.
“No one can say that I am ‘soft on crime.’ My career has been dedicated to trying to put bad people in prison. But we need to be smart about how we use prison.”
Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton (Democrat):
Proposes easing mandatory minimum sentences to give judges more flexibility, curbing racial profiling, restoring voting rights for ex-offenders and diverting more nonviolent offenders.
“We should work together to keep more nonviolent drug offenders out of prison and to ensure that we don’t create another ‘incarceration generation.’”
Senator Ted Cruz of Texas (Republican):
Proposing eliminating redundant crimes, converting regulatory crimes to civil offenses, giving judges more flexibility to sentence, and requiring prosecutors to disclose material exculpatory evidence during plea negotiations. Argues that prosecutors can coerce defendants to plead guilty to crimes they did not commit.
“The current draconian mandatory minimum sentences sometimes result in sentencing outcomes that neither fit the crime nor the perpetrator’s unique circumstances.”
Former Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas (Republican):
Proposes diverting more nonviolent drug offenders to treatment and finding ways to address racial bias in sentencing and expanding education and community mentoring programs to help create more stable families, as he worked to do in Arkansas.
“While disproportionate crime rates are a factor, it is inescapable that we have a system where white kids from upper middle class families get probation and counseling while young black kids get 108 years behind bars.”
Former Gov. Martin O’Malley of Maryland (Democrat):
Proposes considering abolishing the death penalty and replacing it with life in prison without parole, as he did in Maryland.
“Far more good will come by ending violence and saving thousands of lives, than by ending the life of one person who contributed to violence.”
Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky (Republican):
Proposes eliminating mandatory minimum sentences, making it easier for former offenders to find work by letting some seal or expunge their records, restoring the right to vote for nonviolent offenders, ending the “militarization” of police forces and curbing civil asset forfeiture.
“If we come together – liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans – we can create a criminal justice system that makes our streets safer and our communities stronger.”
Former Gov. Rick Perry of Texas (Republican):
Proposes diverting drug offenders to treatment and graduating penalties for parole and probation, as he did in Texas, where he closed three prisons and six juvenile centers.
“Our new approach to criminal justice policy is all about results. This change did not make Texas soft on crime. It made us smart on crime.”
Senator Marco Rubio of Florida (Republican):
Proposes reining in regulatory crimes, stopping the seizure of property to fund law enforcement agencies and requiring that prosecutors prove intent to convict defendants of federal crimes.
“As Americans, we deserve a criminal justice system that is neither mad, nor cruel, but fair and just – with criminal laws and regulations that are easy to understand and not prone to abuse.”
Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin (Republican):
Proposes creating “problem-solving courts” that are involved with offenders beyond sentencing, providing treatment alternatives and expanding workplace drug testing at “critical junctures” to detect people in trouble with substance abuse earlier.
“We have worked to address drug abuse addiction issues without necessitating mass incarceration.”
Former Senator James Webb of Virginia (Democrat):
Proposes appointing a national commission to study the system and recommend changes, which should include shorter sentences for nonviolent drug offenders, graduated sanctions for those on probation and parole, and more work-release programs.
Drug abuse “is a sickness and we have got to treat it that way. We must treat the people who need to be treated and incarcerate the people who need to be incarcerated.”
By Peter Baker
A generation after presidential candidates competed to be tough on crime, a new crop of declared and presumed candidates is competing to rein in the mass incarceration of the last few decades.
A new book compiled by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University’s School of Law has collected essays by many would-be candidates from both parties about what they would do to overhaul the criminal justice system. Here’s a synopsis of their ideas:
Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey (Republican):
Proposes nonfinancial alternatives to bail so low-level offenders can get out of jail while waiting for trial, as he did in his state. Advocates treatment as an alternative for nonviolent drug offenders and barring employers from checking criminal backgrounds until after a first interview.
“No one can say that I am ‘soft on crime.’ My career has been dedicated to trying to put bad people in prison. But we need to be smart about how we use prison.”
Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton (Democrat):
Proposes easing mandatory minimum sentences to give judges more flexibility, curbing racial profiling, restoring voting rights for ex-offenders and diverting more nonviolent offenders.
“We should work together to keep more nonviolent drug offenders out of prison and to ensure that we don’t create another ‘incarceration generation.’”
Senator Ted Cruz of Texas (Republican):
Proposing eliminating redundant crimes, converting regulatory crimes to civil offenses, giving judges more flexibility to sentence, and requiring prosecutors to disclose material exculpatory evidence during plea negotiations. Argues that prosecutors can coerce defendants to plead guilty to crimes they did not commit.
“The current draconian mandatory minimum sentences sometimes result in sentencing outcomes that neither fit the crime nor the perpetrator’s unique circumstances.”
Former Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas (Republican):
Proposes diverting more nonviolent drug offenders to treatment and finding ways to address racial bias in sentencing and expanding education and community mentoring programs to help create more stable families, as he worked to do in Arkansas.
“While disproportionate crime rates are a factor, it is inescapable that we have a system where white kids from upper middle class families get probation and counseling while young black kids get 108 years behind bars.”
Former Gov. Martin O’Malley of Maryland (Democrat):
Proposes considering abolishing the death penalty and replacing it with life in prison without parole, as he did in Maryland.
“Far more good will come by ending violence and saving thousands of lives, than by ending the life of one person who contributed to violence.”
Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky (Republican):
Proposes eliminating mandatory minimum sentences, making it easier for former offenders to find work by letting some seal or expunge their records, restoring the right to vote for nonviolent offenders, ending the “militarization” of police forces and curbing civil asset forfeiture.
“If we come together – liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans – we can create a criminal justice system that makes our streets safer and our communities stronger.”
Former Gov. Rick Perry of Texas (Republican):
Proposes diverting drug offenders to treatment and graduating penalties for parole and probation, as he did in Texas, where he closed three prisons and six juvenile centers.
“Our new approach to criminal justice policy is all about results. This change did not make Texas soft on crime. It made us smart on crime.”
Senator Marco Rubio of Florida (Republican):
Proposes reining in regulatory crimes, stopping the seizure of property to fund law enforcement agencies and requiring that prosecutors prove intent to convict defendants of federal crimes.
“As Americans, we deserve a criminal justice system that is neither mad, nor cruel, but fair and just – with criminal laws and regulations that are easy to understand and not prone to abuse.”
Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin (Republican):
Proposes creating “problem-solving courts” that are involved with offenders beyond sentencing, providing treatment alternatives and expanding workplace drug testing at “critical junctures” to detect people in trouble with substance abuse earlier.
“We have worked to address drug abuse addiction issues without necessitating mass incarceration.”
Former Senator James Webb of Virginia (Democrat):
Proposes appointing a national commission to study the system and recommend changes, which should include shorter sentences for nonviolent drug offenders, graduated sanctions for those on probation and parole, and more work-release programs.
Drug abuse “is a sickness and we have got to treat it that way. We must treat the people who need to be treated and incarcerate the people who need to be incarcerated.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)