Ben Carson Isn't Waiting Until the Election's Over to Cash In
He's breaking with tradition by continuing to give paid speeches as a candidate.
By Sam Brodey
GOP grassroots star Dr. Ben Carson is not letting his presidential campaign interfere with another important endeavor: delivering speeches and getting paid handsomely for them. National Review reported last month that Carson, in an unusual move, will continue to deliver paid speeches "well into next fall." The conservative magazine noted that Carson "would break with long-standing practice discouraging presidential candidates from collecting cash at the podium." Carson reportedly charges at least $40,000 for each appearance.
Carson—whose rise from the housing projects of Detroit to international renown as a neurosurgeon became a TV movie—has been a sought-after public speaker for years. But the demand for Carson speeches within conservative circles soared after his 2013 National Prayer Breakfast speech, during which he sharply criticized President Barack Obama, who was sitting a few feet away. Carson's speaking engagements—which range from political groups to churches to health care organizations—are booked by the Washington Speakers Bureau.
Typically, presidential hopefuls clear their speaking schedules and eliminate lucrative contracts to avoid any appearance of conflicts of interest. But not Carson. In January, as Carson was preparing to run for president, Armstrong Williams told National Review that WSB had booked hundreds of gigs for Carson in the upcoming months. He announced his bid for president in May.
Pocketing large speaking fees from all sorts of groups and interests—and the potential conflicts of interest this can create—is not the only potential problem for Carson. Candidates who give paid speeches risk violating campaign finance laws, says Larry Noble, senior counsel at the Campaign Legal Center, a campaign finance legal advocacy group. When Carson now gives a paid speech, he cannot mention his candidacy or refer to his presidential campaign, because if he does so that would make the event a campaign speech from a legal perspective. And if he's getting paid to give a campaign speech, Noble says, the speaking fee would be considered a campaign contribution and be subject to the contribution limits of $2,700—which is much lower than his usual speaking fee. Beyond that, if Carson delivers a campaign speech that is paid for by trade group, corporation, or nonprofit, it would be against campaign finance law, no matter the amount.
Carson is hardly the only current presidential contender to earn big bucks on the speaking circuit. Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum made up to $50,000 per speech, but only after his 2012 primary defeat. Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry promptly signed with WSB after leaving office this January. (It's unclear if he will continue speaking after he launches his presidential campaign on June 1st.) Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who is mounting his second White House bid, raised eyebrows in 2007 when he continued to speak for money while campaigning. And, of course, the fortune that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has amassed from paid speeches before she announced her candidacy is well known. (Clinton gave her final paid speech as a noncandidate on March 19.)
Carson may be a long shot to win the GOP nomination, but his entry into the 2016 race has already paid off. Last week, the Washington Examiner reported that his sixth and most recent book, One Nation: What We Can All Do to Save America's Future, has been "flying off the shelves" since the campaign launched on May 4. According to the Examiner, sales of Carson's book quadrupled the week after his announcement. One Nation, which had already spent several weeks on the New York Times bestseller list after its June 2014 release, has now sold over 360,000 copies.
"The longer he keeps speaking [for fees], people will raise the question—what is supporting what?" Noble asks. "Is the campaign supporting the speeches, or are the speeches supporting the campaign?" In the end, though, both are supporting the same guy.
May 29, 2015
Master Mariners Regatta
This year's Master Mariners Regatta started in the fog, with a strong flood and not much wind on the San Francisco Cityfront.
Campaign money
Here’s where Rick Santorum gets his campaign money
By Rick Newman
Rick Santorum seems undaunted by money. Other people’s money, that is.
The former Pennsylvania senator was heavily outspent when he ran for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012. He may face a similar spending shortfall now that he’s declared his candidacy for the 2016 race. With Santorum in the hunt, GOP donors will have more than a dozen candidates to choose from heading into the primaries next year.
Santorum raised about $22 million during the 2012 race—less than he pulled in when running for reelection to the Senate in 2006 (when he lost), according to the Center for Responsive Politics. A so-called super PAC supporting Santorum's presidential bid raised $8.5 million more and spent most of that running ads on his behalf. Still, the ultimate Republican nominee in 2012, Mitt Romney, raised about 15 times as much money as Santorum. That sort of funding disadvantage could be even more acute in 2016, since at least four other declared or likely candidates—Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz—have already locked up some of the richest contributors.
In the past, however, Santorum has generated support from a few key money mavens he'll no doubt lean on this time around, including:
Bill Doré, the Louisiana businessman who made his fortune constructing offshore oil and gas facilities. In 2012, Doré was the top contributor to Santorum’s super PAC, the Red, White & Blue Fund, giving $2.25 million. Dore is usually mum about his political donations, and hasn’t said whether he plans to support Santorum in 2016. But he’s a versatile donor who gave relatively small sums to Mitt Romney in 2012 at the same time he was heavily backing Santorum. So he may spread his money around again in 2016.
Foster Friess, the wealthy Wyoming investor, who contributed $2.1 million in 2012 to Santorum’s Red, White & Blue super PAC. Friess has donated to many Republicans. Between 2011 and 2014, he gave $124,600 to Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who’s likely to compete against Santorum for the 2016 GOP nomination. He made four-figure contributions during recent years to Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, also running for the nomination. Yet Friess, who describes himself as “born again,” seems especially fond of Santorum’s firebrand politics and has said Santorum’s his man in 2016.
Annette Simmons, widow of billionaire Texas businessman Harold Simmons, who died in 2013. She gave Santorum’s super PAC $1.2 million in 2012.
Catholic activists, such as Timothy Busch, a California hotelier, and Terence Castor, a San Diego businessman who has funded efforts to ban gay marriage. Santorum is Catholic and touts his religious beliefs as a central element of his political persona.
Small donors. About half of Santorum’s campaign budget in 2012 (not including the super PAC), came from individuals who contributed $200 or less. Just 18% of Romney's funding, by contrast, came from small donors. Santorum’s supporters tend to be anti-abortion conservatives who say religious and moral beliefs are a candidate’s most important traits.
Santorum lost at least one important donor this year: John M. Templeton, the surgeon and philanthropist who died in May at age 75. Templeton gave Santorum’s super PAC $265,000 in 2011 and 2012. A thinly financed campaign may be a bit thinner in 2016.
By Rick Newman
Rick Santorum seems undaunted by money. Other people’s money, that is.
The former Pennsylvania senator was heavily outspent when he ran for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012. He may face a similar spending shortfall now that he’s declared his candidacy for the 2016 race. With Santorum in the hunt, GOP donors will have more than a dozen candidates to choose from heading into the primaries next year.
Santorum raised about $22 million during the 2012 race—less than he pulled in when running for reelection to the Senate in 2006 (when he lost), according to the Center for Responsive Politics. A so-called super PAC supporting Santorum's presidential bid raised $8.5 million more and spent most of that running ads on his behalf. Still, the ultimate Republican nominee in 2012, Mitt Romney, raised about 15 times as much money as Santorum. That sort of funding disadvantage could be even more acute in 2016, since at least four other declared or likely candidates—Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz—have already locked up some of the richest contributors.
In the past, however, Santorum has generated support from a few key money mavens he'll no doubt lean on this time around, including:
Bill Doré, the Louisiana businessman who made his fortune constructing offshore oil and gas facilities. In 2012, Doré was the top contributor to Santorum’s super PAC, the Red, White & Blue Fund, giving $2.25 million. Dore is usually mum about his political donations, and hasn’t said whether he plans to support Santorum in 2016. But he’s a versatile donor who gave relatively small sums to Mitt Romney in 2012 at the same time he was heavily backing Santorum. So he may spread his money around again in 2016.
Foster Friess, the wealthy Wyoming investor, who contributed $2.1 million in 2012 to Santorum’s Red, White & Blue super PAC. Friess has donated to many Republicans. Between 2011 and 2014, he gave $124,600 to Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who’s likely to compete against Santorum for the 2016 GOP nomination. He made four-figure contributions during recent years to Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, also running for the nomination. Yet Friess, who describes himself as “born again,” seems especially fond of Santorum’s firebrand politics and has said Santorum’s his man in 2016.
Annette Simmons, widow of billionaire Texas businessman Harold Simmons, who died in 2013. She gave Santorum’s super PAC $1.2 million in 2012.
Catholic activists, such as Timothy Busch, a California hotelier, and Terence Castor, a San Diego businessman who has funded efforts to ban gay marriage. Santorum is Catholic and touts his religious beliefs as a central element of his political persona.
Small donors. About half of Santorum’s campaign budget in 2012 (not including the super PAC), came from individuals who contributed $200 or less. Just 18% of Romney's funding, by contrast, came from small donors. Santorum’s supporters tend to be anti-abortion conservatives who say religious and moral beliefs are a candidate’s most important traits.
Santorum lost at least one important donor this year: John M. Templeton, the surgeon and philanthropist who died in May at age 75. Templeton gave Santorum’s super PAC $265,000 in 2011 and 2012. A thinly financed campaign may be a bit thinner in 2016.
Cash Flow...
Rand Paul's money problem
Behind the Kentucky senator’s NSA ‘filibuster’ lies a desperate quest for cash.
By Alex Isenstadt
In a presidential campaign defined by billionaire sugar daddy donors, Rand Paul has a problem: He doesn’t seem to have one.
While his rivals cultivate wealthy backers who will pump millions of dollars into their candidacies, Paul has struggled to find a similar lifeline. It’s led to considerable frustration in his campaign, which, amid rising concerns that it will not be able to compete financially, finds itself leaning heavily on the network of small donors who powered his father’s insurgent White House bids.
It hasn’t been for lack of trying. In recent months, Paul has sought to woo a string of powerful Republican megadonors — from Silicon Valley executives to a Kentucky coal mogul to the billionaire Koch brothers — who, it was believed, would be philosophically aligned with his free-market views. In each case, he met disappointment.
At the top of the list was Peter Thiel, the eccentric Northern California venture capitalist who funneled $2.6 million to Ron Paul’s presidential campaign. But Thiel is being far less generous this time around, leaving Paul’s crestfallen advisers with the distinct impression that he won’t give them a dime. They’ve been left guessing as to why. One speculated that Thiel, who didn’t respond to requests for comment, was unhappy with the rollout of Paul’s policy platform. Another surmised he was skeptical of Paul’s 2016 prospects or that he’d become tired of political giving and would sit out 2016 entirely.
There was Sean Parker, the flashy Napster co-founder who was portrayed by Justin Timberlake in the hit 2010 movie “The Social Network.” But Parker, who has known Paul for several years and has met with him to discuss 2016, isn’t expected to endorse Paul — or any Republican candidate, for that matter. Those familiar with Parker’s thinking say he’s most likely to provide financial support to Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton.
There was Larry Ellison, the former Oracle CEO known for his penchant for megayachts. In October, Ellison hosted a Silicon Valley fundraiser for Senate Republicans that Paul attended — an event that led to speculation that Ellison, whose net worth is said to hover around $54 billion, would get behind the Kentucky Republican. But he’s instead thrown his support to Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and will host a fundraiser for him on June 9.
“It was love at first sight,” one person close to Ellison said of his feelings toward Rubio.
Not even two months into his presidential campaign, Paul is scrambling to compete with opponents who have established fundraising vehicles underwritten by well-heeled contributors. Jeb Bush has tapped his family’s formidable network of donors, a wide-ranging list of names that includes real estate developer Mel Sembler and Anheuser-Busch distributor John Nau, to fund a super PAC that’s expected to raise an historic $100 million by the end of this month. Rubio has won the backing of Norman Braman, a Miami auto dealer who’s expected to pour anywhere from $10 million to $25 million into his bid. Ted Cruz is expected to receive around $30 million of support from Robert Mercer, a New York hedge fund manager.
Even Rick Santorum, who barely registers in polls, is expected to have a deep-pocketed benefactor: Foster Friess, a businessman who helped keep Santorum’s 2012 presidential bid alive, has said he will donate again.
Paul is compensating by turning to his grass-roots supporters who fueled his national rise, bombarding them with pleas for cash. In recent days, many have highlighted Paul’s filibuster-style stand against the PATRIOT Act — opposition that has made him a hero to libertarians. “The clock is ticking,” read one appeal sent on Tuesday, a few days after his Senate theatrics. “I need to know you stand with me.”
The hope, those close to Paul say, is that his nationwide support from small contributors will make up for his billionaire deficit.
Sergio Gor, a spokesman for Paul’s official campaign, declined to comment on his fundraising. Jesse Benton, a spokesman for a super PAC that’s been set up to support Paul’s candidacy, America’s Liberty PAC, wouldn’t discuss the group’s fundraising or donors but said early results had shown promise, particularly in Silicon Valley, to which Paul has traveled several times and where he’s opened an office.
“Results to date have been solid and give us lots of room for optimism as we continue,” Benton said. “We also know this is a marathon, not a sprint.”
Among those involved the 2016 money sweepstakes, theories of Paul’s struggles abound. Some point to his anti-establishment posture, which has alienated some in the business community — much of whose support has gone for Bush. Others say his more dovish foreign policy stances has turned off Jewish Republicans, many of whom view him as insufficiently pro-Israel. Still others say he’s found competition from Cruz, who like Paul has branded himself as a free-market thinker.
Others contend that Paul’s unpolished style might be working against him as he seeks out the support of wealthy Republican benefactors, While attending a California donor conference sponsored by Charles and David Koch, two of the nation’s most powerful Republican donors, Paul was criticized for dressing casually in jeans, slouching in his chair and giving rambling answers to questions. One person briefed on the Kochs’ thinking said Paul’s star has faded in their eyes, and that it’s now hard to see them providing substantial financial support to the Kentucky senator.
At times, he’s seemed to be more on defense than offense. Earlier this year, Paul had a private meeting with casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, who’s given millions of dollars to pro-Israel causes. During the meeting, Adelson provided the Kentucky senator with assurances he wouldn’t spend money explicitly to defeat him.
To some, it’s not entirely surprising he’s struggling to win over the party’s donor elite. In 2010, when he upset the political world by defeating Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell’s handpicked candidate in the Kentucky Senate primary, Paul’s deepest well of support came from his party’s activist set. It’s those conservative activists, many believe, whom Paul must win over in 2016.
“The worst thing for a presidential candidate to be is something it’s not,” said Nick Everhart, a former Paul adviser who worked on his 2010 campaign. “If small donors are his place in the field, that’s got to be where he is.”
Still, at times the rejection has stung, especially when he’s tried to win over his home state’s moneyed class.
A few months ago, Paul invited Joe Craft, a Kentucky coal company executive and his fiancée, Kelly Knight, to have breakfast in the Senate dining room. But the couple, who rank among the most prominent Republican givers in the state, had bad news for Paul: They wouldn’t be getting behind his presidential bid.
In a brief interview, though, Knight recalled giving Paul a consolation prize of sorts.
The Crafts would, she told him, “strongly support him in his Senate reelection campaign.”
Behind the Kentucky senator’s NSA ‘filibuster’ lies a desperate quest for cash.
By Alex Isenstadt
In a presidential campaign defined by billionaire sugar daddy donors, Rand Paul has a problem: He doesn’t seem to have one.
While his rivals cultivate wealthy backers who will pump millions of dollars into their candidacies, Paul has struggled to find a similar lifeline. It’s led to considerable frustration in his campaign, which, amid rising concerns that it will not be able to compete financially, finds itself leaning heavily on the network of small donors who powered his father’s insurgent White House bids.
It hasn’t been for lack of trying. In recent months, Paul has sought to woo a string of powerful Republican megadonors — from Silicon Valley executives to a Kentucky coal mogul to the billionaire Koch brothers — who, it was believed, would be philosophically aligned with his free-market views. In each case, he met disappointment.
At the top of the list was Peter Thiel, the eccentric Northern California venture capitalist who funneled $2.6 million to Ron Paul’s presidential campaign. But Thiel is being far less generous this time around, leaving Paul’s crestfallen advisers with the distinct impression that he won’t give them a dime. They’ve been left guessing as to why. One speculated that Thiel, who didn’t respond to requests for comment, was unhappy with the rollout of Paul’s policy platform. Another surmised he was skeptical of Paul’s 2016 prospects or that he’d become tired of political giving and would sit out 2016 entirely.
There was Sean Parker, the flashy Napster co-founder who was portrayed by Justin Timberlake in the hit 2010 movie “The Social Network.” But Parker, who has known Paul for several years and has met with him to discuss 2016, isn’t expected to endorse Paul — or any Republican candidate, for that matter. Those familiar with Parker’s thinking say he’s most likely to provide financial support to Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton.
There was Larry Ellison, the former Oracle CEO known for his penchant for megayachts. In October, Ellison hosted a Silicon Valley fundraiser for Senate Republicans that Paul attended — an event that led to speculation that Ellison, whose net worth is said to hover around $54 billion, would get behind the Kentucky Republican. But he’s instead thrown his support to Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and will host a fundraiser for him on June 9.
“It was love at first sight,” one person close to Ellison said of his feelings toward Rubio.
Not even two months into his presidential campaign, Paul is scrambling to compete with opponents who have established fundraising vehicles underwritten by well-heeled contributors. Jeb Bush has tapped his family’s formidable network of donors, a wide-ranging list of names that includes real estate developer Mel Sembler and Anheuser-Busch distributor John Nau, to fund a super PAC that’s expected to raise an historic $100 million by the end of this month. Rubio has won the backing of Norman Braman, a Miami auto dealer who’s expected to pour anywhere from $10 million to $25 million into his bid. Ted Cruz is expected to receive around $30 million of support from Robert Mercer, a New York hedge fund manager.
Even Rick Santorum, who barely registers in polls, is expected to have a deep-pocketed benefactor: Foster Friess, a businessman who helped keep Santorum’s 2012 presidential bid alive, has said he will donate again.
Paul is compensating by turning to his grass-roots supporters who fueled his national rise, bombarding them with pleas for cash. In recent days, many have highlighted Paul’s filibuster-style stand against the PATRIOT Act — opposition that has made him a hero to libertarians. “The clock is ticking,” read one appeal sent on Tuesday, a few days after his Senate theatrics. “I need to know you stand with me.”
The hope, those close to Paul say, is that his nationwide support from small contributors will make up for his billionaire deficit.
Sergio Gor, a spokesman for Paul’s official campaign, declined to comment on his fundraising. Jesse Benton, a spokesman for a super PAC that’s been set up to support Paul’s candidacy, America’s Liberty PAC, wouldn’t discuss the group’s fundraising or donors but said early results had shown promise, particularly in Silicon Valley, to which Paul has traveled several times and where he’s opened an office.
“Results to date have been solid and give us lots of room for optimism as we continue,” Benton said. “We also know this is a marathon, not a sprint.”
Among those involved the 2016 money sweepstakes, theories of Paul’s struggles abound. Some point to his anti-establishment posture, which has alienated some in the business community — much of whose support has gone for Bush. Others say his more dovish foreign policy stances has turned off Jewish Republicans, many of whom view him as insufficiently pro-Israel. Still others say he’s found competition from Cruz, who like Paul has branded himself as a free-market thinker.
Others contend that Paul’s unpolished style might be working against him as he seeks out the support of wealthy Republican benefactors, While attending a California donor conference sponsored by Charles and David Koch, two of the nation’s most powerful Republican donors, Paul was criticized for dressing casually in jeans, slouching in his chair and giving rambling answers to questions. One person briefed on the Kochs’ thinking said Paul’s star has faded in their eyes, and that it’s now hard to see them providing substantial financial support to the Kentucky senator.
At times, he’s seemed to be more on defense than offense. Earlier this year, Paul had a private meeting with casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, who’s given millions of dollars to pro-Israel causes. During the meeting, Adelson provided the Kentucky senator with assurances he wouldn’t spend money explicitly to defeat him.
To some, it’s not entirely surprising he’s struggling to win over the party’s donor elite. In 2010, when he upset the political world by defeating Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell’s handpicked candidate in the Kentucky Senate primary, Paul’s deepest well of support came from his party’s activist set. It’s those conservative activists, many believe, whom Paul must win over in 2016.
“The worst thing for a presidential candidate to be is something it’s not,” said Nick Everhart, a former Paul adviser who worked on his 2010 campaign. “If small donors are his place in the field, that’s got to be where he is.”
Still, at times the rejection has stung, especially when he’s tried to win over his home state’s moneyed class.
A few months ago, Paul invited Joe Craft, a Kentucky coal company executive and his fiancée, Kelly Knight, to have breakfast in the Senate dining room. But the couple, who rank among the most prominent Republican givers in the state, had bad news for Paul: They wouldn’t be getting behind his presidential bid.
In a brief interview, though, Knight recalled giving Paul a consolation prize of sorts.
The Crafts would, she told him, “strongly support him in his Senate reelection campaign.”
Kock pounding...
Will Democrats keep hammering the Kocks?
By MJ Lee, Politics and
As the Senate's top Democrat, Harry Reid has loved nothing more than attacking the Kock brothers and their influence over politics.
Now Democrats have to decide how to wage that battle without him.
Heading into last year's elections, the Nevada Democrat delighted in repeatedly slamming Charles and David Kock -- using the Senate floor to call them "un-American" and accuse them of "trying to buy America" -- as he flaunted the mega-donors' ties to the GOP. But many of the candidates backed by the Kocks won in 2014, Democrats lost control of the Senate, and Reid will retire at the end of next year.
Setbacks aside, Reid insists he has no regrets about his strategy and doesn't plan to back down during his remaining time on Capitol Hill. In a brief interview recently, he told CNN he will go after the Kocks "as much as I can" before retiring.
But once he's gone, will a new Democratic ringleader take over Reid's mission of casting the Kocks as modern political villains?
Sen. Chuck Schumer, in line to take Reid's job in 2017, declined to comment when asked about the Kock brothers. Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin said his party shouldn't "ever back away" from scrutinizing the Kocks. But pressed on whether he has any interest in assuming Reid's role of chief antagonist, the senator from Illinois chuckled: "It isn't as though Harry hands the baton off to anyone."
Hillary Clinton, the presumed Democratic presidential front-runner, has yet to mention the Kocks publicly since launching her second White House bid. She has, however, indicated plans to help raise money for a pro-Clinton super PAC that Democrats hope could rival the Kocks' fundraising prowess.
Meanwhile, the Kocks are doubling down.
The billionaire industrialists seem more eager than ever to flex their muscles in 2016, an election cycle that is certain to cement their status as two of the most powerful Republican donors in an era of virtually unlimited outside political spending.
They're currently eying their favorite candidates in the crowded Republican field, have pledged to raise an eye-popping $900 million for the 2016 cycle, and launched an aggressive public relations campaign to revamp Kock Industries' reputation.
Republicans have long declared the strategy of bashing the Kocks a failure.
"I've heard Democrats say it would have been worse without the Kock strategy," said Tim Phillips, president of the Kock brothers-founded Americans for Prosperity.
"What's worse than nine seats? It doesn't get much worse than that," Phillips says, referring to the number of Senate seats the GOP gained in 2014.
Kock Industries spokesman Ken Spain said an anti-Kock campaign in 2016 will only be as successful as it was in the 2014 cycle.
By MJ Lee, Politics and
As the Senate's top Democrat, Harry Reid has loved nothing more than attacking the Kock brothers and their influence over politics.
Now Democrats have to decide how to wage that battle without him.
Heading into last year's elections, the Nevada Democrat delighted in repeatedly slamming Charles and David Kock -- using the Senate floor to call them "un-American" and accuse them of "trying to buy America" -- as he flaunted the mega-donors' ties to the GOP. But many of the candidates backed by the Kocks won in 2014, Democrats lost control of the Senate, and Reid will retire at the end of next year.
Setbacks aside, Reid insists he has no regrets about his strategy and doesn't plan to back down during his remaining time on Capitol Hill. In a brief interview recently, he told CNN he will go after the Kocks "as much as I can" before retiring.
But once he's gone, will a new Democratic ringleader take over Reid's mission of casting the Kocks as modern political villains?
Sen. Chuck Schumer, in line to take Reid's job in 2017, declined to comment when asked about the Kock brothers. Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin said his party shouldn't "ever back away" from scrutinizing the Kocks. But pressed on whether he has any interest in assuming Reid's role of chief antagonist, the senator from Illinois chuckled: "It isn't as though Harry hands the baton off to anyone."
Hillary Clinton, the presumed Democratic presidential front-runner, has yet to mention the Kocks publicly since launching her second White House bid. She has, however, indicated plans to help raise money for a pro-Clinton super PAC that Democrats hope could rival the Kocks' fundraising prowess.
Meanwhile, the Kocks are doubling down.
The billionaire industrialists seem more eager than ever to flex their muscles in 2016, an election cycle that is certain to cement their status as two of the most powerful Republican donors in an era of virtually unlimited outside political spending.
They're currently eying their favorite candidates in the crowded Republican field, have pledged to raise an eye-popping $900 million for the 2016 cycle, and launched an aggressive public relations campaign to revamp Kock Industries' reputation.
Republicans have long declared the strategy of bashing the Kocks a failure.
"I've heard Democrats say it would have been worse without the Kock strategy," said Tim Phillips, president of the Kock brothers-founded Americans for Prosperity.
"What's worse than nine seats? It doesn't get much worse than that," Phillips says, referring to the number of Senate seats the GOP gained in 2014.
Kock Industries spokesman Ken Spain said an anti-Kock campaign in 2016 will only be as successful as it was in the 2014 cycle.
Polluted
Polluted Political Games
Nicholas Kristof
I’ve admired the Clintons’ foundation for years for its fine work on AIDS and global poverty, and I’ve moderated many panels at the annual Clinton Global Initiative. Yet with each revelation of failed disclosures or the appearance of a conflict of interest from speaking fees of $500,000 for the former president, I have wondered: What were they thinking?
But the problem is not precisely the Clintons. It’s our entire disgraceful money-based political system. Look around:
• Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey accepted flights and playoff tickets from the Dallas Cowboys owner, Jerry Jones, who has business interests Christie can affect.
• Senator Marco Rubio of Florida has received financial assistance from a billionaire, Norman Braman, and has channeled public money to Braman’s causes.
• Jeb Bush likely has delayed his formal candidacy because then he would have to stop coordinating with his “super PAC” and raising money for it. He is breaching at least the spirit of the law.
When problems are this widespread, the problem is not crooked individuals but perverse incentives from a rotten structure.
“There is a systemic corruption here,” says Sheila Krumholz of the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks campaign money. “It’s kind of baked in.”
Most politicians are good people. Then they discover that money is the only fuel that makes the system work and sometimes step into the bog themselves.
Money isn’t a new problem, of course. John F. Kennedy was accused of using his father’s wealth to buy elections. In response, he joked that he had received the following telegram from his dad: “Don’t buy another vote. I won’t pay for a landslide!”
Yet Robert Reich, Bill Clinton’s labor secretary and now chairman of the national governing board of Common Cause, a nonpartisan watchdog group, notes that inequality has hugely exacerbated the problem. Billionaires adopt presidential candidates as if they were prize racehorses. Yet for them, it’s only a hobby expense.
For example, Sheldon and Miriam Adelson donated $92 million to super PACs in the 2012 election cycle; as a share of their net worth, that was equivalent to $300 from the median American family. So a multibillionaire can influence a national election for the same sacrifice an average family bears in, say, a weekend driving getaway.
Money doesn’t always succeed, of course, and billionaires often end up wasting money on campaigns. According to The San Jose Mercury News, Meg Whitman spent $43 per vote in her failed campaign for governor of California in 2010, mostly from her own pocket. But Michael Bloomberg won his 2009 re-election campaign for mayor of New York City after, according to the New York Daily News, spending $185 of his own money per vote.
The real bargain is lobbying — and that’s why corporations spend 13 times as much lobbying as they do contributing to campaigns, by the calculations of Lee Drutman, author of a recent book on lobbying.
The health care industry hires about five times as many lobbyists as there are members of Congress. That’s a shrewd investment. Drug company lobbyists have prevented Medicare from getting bulk discounts, amounting to perhaps $50 billion a year in extra profits for the sector.
Likewise, lobbying has carved out the egregious carried interest tax loophole, allowing many financiers to pay vastly reduced tax rates. In that respect, money in politics both reflects inequality and amplifies it.
Lobbyists exert influence because they bring a potent combination of expertise and money to the game. They gain access, offer a well-informed take on obscure issues — and, for a member of Congress, you think twice before biting the hand that feeds you.
The Supreme Court is partly to blame for the present money game, for its misguided rulings that struck down limits in campaign spending by corporations and unions and the overall political donation cap for individuals.
Still, President Obama could take one step that would help: an executive order requiring federal contractors to disclose all political contributions.
“President Obama could bring the dark money into the sunlight in time for the 2016 election,” notes Michael Waldman of the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law. “It’s the single most tangible thing anyone could do to expose the dark money that is now polluting politics.”
I’ve covered corrupt regimes all over the world, and I find it ineffably sad to come home and behold institutionalized sleaze in the United States.
Reich told me that for meaningful change to arrive, “voters need to reach a point of revulsion.” Hey, folks, that time has come.
Nicholas Kristof
I’ve admired the Clintons’ foundation for years for its fine work on AIDS and global poverty, and I’ve moderated many panels at the annual Clinton Global Initiative. Yet with each revelation of failed disclosures or the appearance of a conflict of interest from speaking fees of $500,000 for the former president, I have wondered: What were they thinking?
But the problem is not precisely the Clintons. It’s our entire disgraceful money-based political system. Look around:
• Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey accepted flights and playoff tickets from the Dallas Cowboys owner, Jerry Jones, who has business interests Christie can affect.
• Senator Marco Rubio of Florida has received financial assistance from a billionaire, Norman Braman, and has channeled public money to Braman’s causes.
• Jeb Bush likely has delayed his formal candidacy because then he would have to stop coordinating with his “super PAC” and raising money for it. He is breaching at least the spirit of the law.
When problems are this widespread, the problem is not crooked individuals but perverse incentives from a rotten structure.
“There is a systemic corruption here,” says Sheila Krumholz of the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks campaign money. “It’s kind of baked in.”
Most politicians are good people. Then they discover that money is the only fuel that makes the system work and sometimes step into the bog themselves.
Money isn’t a new problem, of course. John F. Kennedy was accused of using his father’s wealth to buy elections. In response, he joked that he had received the following telegram from his dad: “Don’t buy another vote. I won’t pay for a landslide!”
Yet Robert Reich, Bill Clinton’s labor secretary and now chairman of the national governing board of Common Cause, a nonpartisan watchdog group, notes that inequality has hugely exacerbated the problem. Billionaires adopt presidential candidates as if they were prize racehorses. Yet for them, it’s only a hobby expense.
For example, Sheldon and Miriam Adelson donated $92 million to super PACs in the 2012 election cycle; as a share of their net worth, that was equivalent to $300 from the median American family. So a multibillionaire can influence a national election for the same sacrifice an average family bears in, say, a weekend driving getaway.
Money doesn’t always succeed, of course, and billionaires often end up wasting money on campaigns. According to The San Jose Mercury News, Meg Whitman spent $43 per vote in her failed campaign for governor of California in 2010, mostly from her own pocket. But Michael Bloomberg won his 2009 re-election campaign for mayor of New York City after, according to the New York Daily News, spending $185 of his own money per vote.
The real bargain is lobbying — and that’s why corporations spend 13 times as much lobbying as they do contributing to campaigns, by the calculations of Lee Drutman, author of a recent book on lobbying.
The health care industry hires about five times as many lobbyists as there are members of Congress. That’s a shrewd investment. Drug company lobbyists have prevented Medicare from getting bulk discounts, amounting to perhaps $50 billion a year in extra profits for the sector.
Likewise, lobbying has carved out the egregious carried interest tax loophole, allowing many financiers to pay vastly reduced tax rates. In that respect, money in politics both reflects inequality and amplifies it.
Lobbyists exert influence because they bring a potent combination of expertise and money to the game. They gain access, offer a well-informed take on obscure issues — and, for a member of Congress, you think twice before biting the hand that feeds you.
The Supreme Court is partly to blame for the present money game, for its misguided rulings that struck down limits in campaign spending by corporations and unions and the overall political donation cap for individuals.
Still, President Obama could take one step that would help: an executive order requiring federal contractors to disclose all political contributions.
“President Obama could bring the dark money into the sunlight in time for the 2016 election,” notes Michael Waldman of the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law. “It’s the single most tangible thing anyone could do to expose the dark money that is now polluting politics.”
I’ve covered corrupt regimes all over the world, and I find it ineffably sad to come home and behold institutionalized sleaze in the United States.
Reich told me that for meaningful change to arrive, “voters need to reach a point of revulsion.” Hey, folks, that time has come.
New Bill
Potential 2016 Contender Martin O'Malley Supports New Bill to Wean Politicians Off Big Money
By Andy Kroll
While Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Democratic nominee in the 2016 presidential contest, has made headlines lately for the big-money-fueled super-PACs lining up in her corner, another potential Democratic contender, Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, is embracing the other end of the political money spectrum.
O'Malley, who would likely run to the left of Clinton in 2016, says he supports the Government By The People Act, a new bill recently introduced by Maryland Congressman John Sarbanes intended to increase the number of small-dollar donors in congressional elections and nudge federal candidates to court those $50 and $100 givers instead of wealthier people who can easily cut $2,500 checks. The nuts and bolts of the Government By The People Act are nothing new: To encourage political giving, Americans get a $25 tax credit for the primary season and another $25 credit for the general election. And on the candidate side, every dollar of donations up to $150 will be matched with six dollars of public money, in effect "supersizing" small donations. (Participating candidates must agree to a $1,000 cap on all contributions to get that 6-to-1 match.) In other words, the Sarbanes bill wants federal campaigns funded by more people giving smaller amounts instead of fewer people maxing out.
What makes the Sarbanes bill stand out is breadth of support it enjoys. The bill has 130 cosponsors—all Democrats with the exception of Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.)—including Sarbanes and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) And practically every progressive group under the sun has stumped for the Government By The People Act, including the Communication Workers of America, the Teamsters, Sierra Club, NAACP, Working Families, Friends of Democracy super-PAC, and more. Through efforts like the Democracy Initiative and the Fund for the Republic, progressives are mobilizing around the issue of money in politics, and their championing of Sarbanes' bill is a case in point.
But O'Malley is the first 2016 hopeful to stump for the reforms outlined in the Government By The People Act. "We need more action and smarter solutions to improve our nation's campaign finance system, and I commend Congressmen John Sarbanes and Chris Van Hollen for their leadership on this important issue," O'Malley said in a statement. "Elections are the foundation of a successful democracy and these ideas will put us one step closer toward a better, more representative system that reflects the American values we share."
No other Democratic headliners, including Clinton, have taken a position on the Sarbanes bill. (New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo did include a statewide public financing program in his latest budget proposal. And Clinton, as a senator, cosponsored the Kerry-Wellstone Clean Elections Act.) Yet with nearly every major liberal group rallying around the money-in-politics issue, any Democrat angling for the White House in 2016 will need to speak up on how he or she will reform today's big-money political system.
By Andy Kroll
While Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Democratic nominee in the 2016 presidential contest, has made headlines lately for the big-money-fueled super-PACs lining up in her corner, another potential Democratic contender, Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, is embracing the other end of the political money spectrum.
O'Malley, who would likely run to the left of Clinton in 2016, says he supports the Government By The People Act, a new bill recently introduced by Maryland Congressman John Sarbanes intended to increase the number of small-dollar donors in congressional elections and nudge federal candidates to court those $50 and $100 givers instead of wealthier people who can easily cut $2,500 checks. The nuts and bolts of the Government By The People Act are nothing new: To encourage political giving, Americans get a $25 tax credit for the primary season and another $25 credit for the general election. And on the candidate side, every dollar of donations up to $150 will be matched with six dollars of public money, in effect "supersizing" small donations. (Participating candidates must agree to a $1,000 cap on all contributions to get that 6-to-1 match.) In other words, the Sarbanes bill wants federal campaigns funded by more people giving smaller amounts instead of fewer people maxing out.
What makes the Sarbanes bill stand out is breadth of support it enjoys. The bill has 130 cosponsors—all Democrats with the exception of Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.)—including Sarbanes and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) And practically every progressive group under the sun has stumped for the Government By The People Act, including the Communication Workers of America, the Teamsters, Sierra Club, NAACP, Working Families, Friends of Democracy super-PAC, and more. Through efforts like the Democracy Initiative and the Fund for the Republic, progressives are mobilizing around the issue of money in politics, and their championing of Sarbanes' bill is a case in point.
But O'Malley is the first 2016 hopeful to stump for the reforms outlined in the Government By The People Act. "We need more action and smarter solutions to improve our nation's campaign finance system, and I commend Congressmen John Sarbanes and Chris Van Hollen for their leadership on this important issue," O'Malley said in a statement. "Elections are the foundation of a successful democracy and these ideas will put us one step closer toward a better, more representative system that reflects the American values we share."
No other Democratic headliners, including Clinton, have taken a position on the Sarbanes bill. (New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo did include a statewide public financing program in his latest budget proposal. And Clinton, as a senator, cosponsored the Kerry-Wellstone Clean Elections Act.) Yet with nearly every major liberal group rallying around the money-in-politics issue, any Democrat angling for the White House in 2016 will need to speak up on how he or she will reform today's big-money political system.
Games
The Republican Hunger Games
By Gloria Borger
Is it just me, or are some Republican candidates behaving a tad aggressively these days?
Consider this: Carly Fiorina, a onetime CEO of a large computer company (now polling at 2%) is suddenly showing up outside Hillary Clinton events to grab the attention of the gathered press corps. And how does she do it? By staging an "availability" in which she takes on Clinton, completely unprovoked. As if to say: I am woman, hear me roar -- at another woman, as only I can. (We've come a long way, baby.) So please notice me -- which we are.
Or Rand Paul (polling at 7%), taking center stage in the Senate to oppose renewal of the Patriot Act in an anti-Big Brother, happily libertarian moment. Or appearing on MSNBC to say that the rise of ISIS is actually due to overzealous GOP hawks — an in-your-face move that takes his whole brand of noninterventionism to a different level — actually blaming Republicans instead of Obama.
Or Bobby Jindal (polling at 1%) getting into the act by then proclaiming Paul "unsuited to be commander in chief." And make way for Chris Christie's two cents (and his 4% polling) to slam the GOP's anti-NSA surveillance gang as "misguided ideologues."
Such fireworks, and not even the Fourth of July. And from Republicans, no less.
I mean, what would Ronald Reagan think?
Actually, if Reagan were running he'd have to adjust his mild temperament to the Darwinian realities of GOPworld, circa 2016: First, a field that could grow to 15 candidates, or beyond. Second, all-important debates that start in August. The first crucial debate is sponsored by Fox News, which is limiting participants to those who rate in the top 10 in national polling. "So it's divide and conquer, right now," says one GOP pollster who asked to remain anonymous to speak freely. "In a field with 15 candidates, everyone is looking for a niche to get yourself out of the single digits and get a spot."
Think of the Hunger Games -- without the fun.
The game now is to become a hero to a group of Republicans nationally — and it can be small, since there are so many candidates in the mix — that pushes you to the top tier. It's the debate primary, and everyone has to play. So if Rand Paul is angering John McCain and GOP hawks, he's not losing any sleep over it. He is worrying about rallying his national GOP debate base: libertarians, younger voters and even minorities.
So while the candidates are out and about in Iowa and New Hampshire doing the "retail politics" in small groups we all love to talk about as the foundation of our great political system, they're now playing an equally pressing national game at the same time to qualify for a coveted debate podium.
Last time around, for instance, when former Sen. Rick Santorum won Iowa — albeit by 34 votes — he did it by virtually living in the state for months, becoming a known local quantity. But now he needs to figure out a way to show up in the national polls, too — and that's a problem.
The debate rules in September provide somewhat less anxiety for candidates. We're having two debates, same night, back-to-back. One for the top 10, another for the second tier. Everyone on stage, but at different times. Even so, who wouldn't compete to have a podium alongside the top national contenders?
The irony is that the national polls — which we political types always like to say don't matter at this stage in a campaign — now actually do matter. Not because they are indicators of eventual victory of any sort (they're not), but because they will determine who will play where in the early debates. (Later debates could, of course, have different rules — and fewer candidates -- just to confuse us all.)
Sure, there's a certain unfairness in all this. If you're Jeb Bush, you can get all the national attention you want. The cameras follow you; there is no need to follow them. (See: Carly Fiorina.) And if you have been a regular contributor on Fox (See: Ben Carson, Gov. Mike Huckabee), you may have built-in name recognition. Which can also work the other way. (See: Donald Trump.) But for much of the rest of the field, there are no guarantees. So you become a candidate looking for a loyal contingent large enough to keep you viable in an oversized field. "Sad to say," says a GOP pollster aligned with a second-tier candidate, "the more outrageous you are, the more you have a shot."
And yes, a Republican just said that.
By Gloria Borger
Is it just me, or are some Republican candidates behaving a tad aggressively these days?
Consider this: Carly Fiorina, a onetime CEO of a large computer company (now polling at 2%) is suddenly showing up outside Hillary Clinton events to grab the attention of the gathered press corps. And how does she do it? By staging an "availability" in which she takes on Clinton, completely unprovoked. As if to say: I am woman, hear me roar -- at another woman, as only I can. (We've come a long way, baby.) So please notice me -- which we are.
Or Rand Paul (polling at 7%), taking center stage in the Senate to oppose renewal of the Patriot Act in an anti-Big Brother, happily libertarian moment. Or appearing on MSNBC to say that the rise of ISIS is actually due to overzealous GOP hawks — an in-your-face move that takes his whole brand of noninterventionism to a different level — actually blaming Republicans instead of Obama.
Or Bobby Jindal (polling at 1%) getting into the act by then proclaiming Paul "unsuited to be commander in chief." And make way for Chris Christie's two cents (and his 4% polling) to slam the GOP's anti-NSA surveillance gang as "misguided ideologues."
Such fireworks, and not even the Fourth of July. And from Republicans, no less.
I mean, what would Ronald Reagan think?
Actually, if Reagan were running he'd have to adjust his mild temperament to the Darwinian realities of GOPworld, circa 2016: First, a field that could grow to 15 candidates, or beyond. Second, all-important debates that start in August. The first crucial debate is sponsored by Fox News, which is limiting participants to those who rate in the top 10 in national polling. "So it's divide and conquer, right now," says one GOP pollster who asked to remain anonymous to speak freely. "In a field with 15 candidates, everyone is looking for a niche to get yourself out of the single digits and get a spot."
Think of the Hunger Games -- without the fun.
The game now is to become a hero to a group of Republicans nationally — and it can be small, since there are so many candidates in the mix — that pushes you to the top tier. It's the debate primary, and everyone has to play. So if Rand Paul is angering John McCain and GOP hawks, he's not losing any sleep over it. He is worrying about rallying his national GOP debate base: libertarians, younger voters and even minorities.
So while the candidates are out and about in Iowa and New Hampshire doing the "retail politics" in small groups we all love to talk about as the foundation of our great political system, they're now playing an equally pressing national game at the same time to qualify for a coveted debate podium.
Last time around, for instance, when former Sen. Rick Santorum won Iowa — albeit by 34 votes — he did it by virtually living in the state for months, becoming a known local quantity. But now he needs to figure out a way to show up in the national polls, too — and that's a problem.
The debate rules in September provide somewhat less anxiety for candidates. We're having two debates, same night, back-to-back. One for the top 10, another for the second tier. Everyone on stage, but at different times. Even so, who wouldn't compete to have a podium alongside the top national contenders?
The irony is that the national polls — which we political types always like to say don't matter at this stage in a campaign — now actually do matter. Not because they are indicators of eventual victory of any sort (they're not), but because they will determine who will play where in the early debates. (Later debates could, of course, have different rules — and fewer candidates -- just to confuse us all.)
Sure, there's a certain unfairness in all this. If you're Jeb Bush, you can get all the national attention you want. The cameras follow you; there is no need to follow them. (See: Carly Fiorina.) And if you have been a regular contributor on Fox (See: Ben Carson, Gov. Mike Huckabee), you may have built-in name recognition. Which can also work the other way. (See: Donald Trump.) But for much of the rest of the field, there are no guarantees. So you become a candidate looking for a loyal contingent large enough to keep you viable in an oversized field. "Sad to say," says a GOP pollster aligned with a second-tier candidate, "the more outrageous you are, the more you have a shot."
And yes, a Republican just said that.
Naked Eye
Blue Aurorae in Mars’ Sky Visible to the Naked Eye
For the first time, an international team of scientists from NASA, the Institute of Planetology and Astrophysics of Grenoble (IPAG), the European Space Agency and Aalto University in Finland, have predicted that colorful, glowing aurorae can be seen by the naked eye on a terrestrial planet other than Earth — Mars.
Visible Martian aurorae seemed possible after the SPICAM imaging instrument on-board the ESA satellite Mars Express spotted aurorae from space in 2005. Those observations were confirmed in March 2015 by the NASA-led MAVEN mission, which completed 1,000 orbits around the red planet on April 6, 2015.
Through laboratory experiments and a physical numerical model developed at NASA and IPAG, the study shows that, on Mars, aurorae also occur in the visible range. The most intense color is deep blue. As on Earth, green and red colors are also present. Several times during a solar cycle, after intense solar eruptions, these lights are bright enough to be seen with the naked eye.
Aurorae occur when charged solar particles reach local magnetic field lines, where they enter the planetary atmosphere and excite its atoms and molecules. As they deactivate, the particles produce light emission. On Earth, aurorae are essentially green or red (excitation of atomic oxygen), but even blue-purple (excitation of ionized molecular nitrogen) can be seen.
At the beginning of Mars’ existence and up until 3.5 billion years ago, the red planet hosted a global magnetic field. Although this global field somehow shut down, local spots of increased magnetic fields, called crustal magnetic anomalies, still remain in Mars' surface. These anomalies are concentrated in the southern hemisphere, where aurorae are predicted to occur.
It is predicted that an astronaut walking on the red soil of the planet could look up to see the southern night sky glow blue, with red and green hues.
Perhaps NASA astronauts who plan to make their way towards the Mars’ surface by the 2030s aboard Orion will be the first to provide first-hand confirmation of the prediction. And to think, Mars’ southern lights could eventually become as much of a draw to aurorae admirers as Earth’s northern lights.
“Our planetary research gives us good insight on physics in the Martian atmosphere — how it evolved, why Mars’ mass is different than Earth’s,” said Guillaume Gronoff, a research scientist at NASA’s Langley Research Center who helped to lead the study. “It helps us to better understand planetary atmosphere emissions, ultimately helping us to discover habitable planets.”
The Planeterella simulates aurorae using a magnetic field, charged particles and a sphere. For this study, they replaced the terrestrial atmospheric gas with CO2, the major component of the Martian atmosphere, and then created a discharge in a vacuum similar to Mars’ upper atmosphere. There are seventeen Planeterellas worldwide. One is located at NASA Langley’s official Visitors Center — the Virginia Air and Space Center in Hampton, Va. — where Guillaume occasionally exhibits the simulation.
For the first time, an international team of scientists from NASA, the Institute of Planetology and Astrophysics of Grenoble (IPAG), the European Space Agency and Aalto University in Finland, have predicted that colorful, glowing aurorae can be seen by the naked eye on a terrestrial planet other than Earth — Mars.
Visible Martian aurorae seemed possible after the SPICAM imaging instrument on-board the ESA satellite Mars Express spotted aurorae from space in 2005. Those observations were confirmed in March 2015 by the NASA-led MAVEN mission, which completed 1,000 orbits around the red planet on April 6, 2015.
Through laboratory experiments and a physical numerical model developed at NASA and IPAG, the study shows that, on Mars, aurorae also occur in the visible range. The most intense color is deep blue. As on Earth, green and red colors are also present. Several times during a solar cycle, after intense solar eruptions, these lights are bright enough to be seen with the naked eye.
Aurorae occur when charged solar particles reach local magnetic field lines, where they enter the planetary atmosphere and excite its atoms and molecules. As they deactivate, the particles produce light emission. On Earth, aurorae are essentially green or red (excitation of atomic oxygen), but even blue-purple (excitation of ionized molecular nitrogen) can be seen.
At the beginning of Mars’ existence and up until 3.5 billion years ago, the red planet hosted a global magnetic field. Although this global field somehow shut down, local spots of increased magnetic fields, called crustal magnetic anomalies, still remain in Mars' surface. These anomalies are concentrated in the southern hemisphere, where aurorae are predicted to occur.
It is predicted that an astronaut walking on the red soil of the planet could look up to see the southern night sky glow blue, with red and green hues.
Perhaps NASA astronauts who plan to make their way towards the Mars’ surface by the 2030s aboard Orion will be the first to provide first-hand confirmation of the prediction. And to think, Mars’ southern lights could eventually become as much of a draw to aurorae admirers as Earth’s northern lights.
“Our planetary research gives us good insight on physics in the Martian atmosphere — how it evolved, why Mars’ mass is different than Earth’s,” said Guillaume Gronoff, a research scientist at NASA’s Langley Research Center who helped to lead the study. “It helps us to better understand planetary atmosphere emissions, ultimately helping us to discover habitable planets.”
The Planeterella simulates aurorae using a magnetic field, charged particles and a sphere. For this study, they replaced the terrestrial atmospheric gas with CO2, the major component of the Martian atmosphere, and then created a discharge in a vacuum similar to Mars’ upper atmosphere. There are seventeen Planeterellas worldwide. One is located at NASA Langley’s official Visitors Center — the Virginia Air and Space Center in Hampton, Va. — where Guillaume occasionally exhibits the simulation.
Last Up-close Look
Cassini Prepares for Last Up-close Look at Hyperion
NASA's Cassini spacecraft will make its final close approach to Saturn's large, irregularly shaped moon Hyperion on Sunday, May 31.
The Saturn-orbiting spacecraft will pass Hyperion at a distance of about 21,000 miles (34,000 kilometers) at approximately 6:36 a.m. PDT (9:36 a.m. EDT). Mission controllers expect images from the encounter to arrive on Earth within 24 to 48 hours.
Mission scientists have hopes of seeing different terrain on Hyperion than the mission has previously explored in detail during the encounter, but this is not guaranteed. Hyperion (168 miles, 270 kilometers across) rotates chaotically, essentially tumbling unpredictably through space as it orbits Saturn. Because of this, it’s challenging to target a specific region of the moon's surface, and most of Cassini's previous close approaches have encountered more or less the same familiar side of the craggy moon.
Cassini scientists attribute Hyperion's unusual, sponge-like appearance to the fact that it has an unusually low density for such a large object -- about half that of water. Its low density makes Hyperion quite porous, with weak surface gravity. These characteristics mean impactors tend to compress the surface, rather than excavating it, and most material that is blown off the surface never returns.
Cassini's closest-ever Hyperion flyby took place on September 26, 2005, at a distance of 314 miles (505 kilometers).
Cassini's next notable flyby after May 31 is slated for June 16, when the spacecraft will pass 321 miles (516 kilometers) above icy Dione. That flyby will represent the mission's penultimate close approach to that moon. In October, Cassini will make two close flybys of the active moon Enceladus, with its jets of icy spray, coming as close as 30 miles (48 kilometers) in the final pass. In late 2015, the spacecraft will again depart Saturn's equatorial plane -- where moon flybys occur most frequently -- to begin a year-long setup of the mission's daring final year. For its grand finale, Cassini will repeatedly dive through the space between Saturn and its rings.
NASA's Cassini spacecraft will make its final close approach to Saturn's large, irregularly shaped moon Hyperion on Sunday, May 31.
The Saturn-orbiting spacecraft will pass Hyperion at a distance of about 21,000 miles (34,000 kilometers) at approximately 6:36 a.m. PDT (9:36 a.m. EDT). Mission controllers expect images from the encounter to arrive on Earth within 24 to 48 hours.
Mission scientists have hopes of seeing different terrain on Hyperion than the mission has previously explored in detail during the encounter, but this is not guaranteed. Hyperion (168 miles, 270 kilometers across) rotates chaotically, essentially tumbling unpredictably through space as it orbits Saturn. Because of this, it’s challenging to target a specific region of the moon's surface, and most of Cassini's previous close approaches have encountered more or less the same familiar side of the craggy moon.
Cassini scientists attribute Hyperion's unusual, sponge-like appearance to the fact that it has an unusually low density for such a large object -- about half that of water. Its low density makes Hyperion quite porous, with weak surface gravity. These characteristics mean impactors tend to compress the surface, rather than excavating it, and most material that is blown off the surface never returns.
Cassini's closest-ever Hyperion flyby took place on September 26, 2005, at a distance of 314 miles (505 kilometers).
Cassini's next notable flyby after May 31 is slated for June 16, when the spacecraft will pass 321 miles (516 kilometers) above icy Dione. That flyby will represent the mission's penultimate close approach to that moon. In October, Cassini will make two close flybys of the active moon Enceladus, with its jets of icy spray, coming as close as 30 miles (48 kilometers) in the final pass. In late 2015, the spacecraft will again depart Saturn's equatorial plane -- where moon flybys occur most frequently -- to begin a year-long setup of the mission's daring final year. For its grand finale, Cassini will repeatedly dive through the space between Saturn and its rings.
May 28, 2015
Local control...
The GOP and ALEC’s War on Cities
by Theo Anderson
Few ideas are more powerful in US politics than local control. The South rallied around states’ rights during the Civil War. Conservatives rage at the federal government for meddling in local matters.
But when local control favors progressives, it turns out to be “a form of collectivism” rather than a cherished conservative principle.
That’s what Republican Texas Governor Greg Abbott recently called the trend of city-level bans on plastic bags, fracking and tree-cutting. They form “a patchwork quilt of bans and rules and regulations,” Abbott said, “that are eroding the Texas model” and turning the state into California.
Texas legislators have responded with proposals to preempt local laws, including a bill that would prevent local governments from issuing any ordinance that “conflicts with or is more stringent than a state statute or rule.”
Such bills blocking progressive laws are growing in popularity across the United States, especially in GOP-controlled legislatures. Last year, for example, when Oklahoma City debated raising its minimum wage to $10.10, the state legislature passed a law preventing cities from enacting wage increases.
Progressive muscle-flexing by urban America on the minimum wage, fracking and other key economic and environmental issues poses a serious challenge to the GOP’s program of obstruction in Congress. It also threatens the deep bias of our national politics toward red states and conservative ideology. That makes subverting the power of cities an urgent task for conservatives, even if it means becoming “meddling bureaucrats” themselves.
As a staff member of the right-wing American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) said last year while discussing the trend toward minimum-wage increases: “Perhaps the biggest threat comes from the local level.”
ALEC has been a key actor in the push for state-level preemption laws. It now aims to push local conservatism directly with an initiative called the American City Council Exchange (ACCE), which will create model legislation at the local level, just as ALEC does for state legislatures. “Working together,” according to the ACCE mission statement, “members learn from others’ challenges and evaluate how free-market policies work when applied to local governments.”
ACCE will hold its second annual meeting this summer in San Diego, including a session on “local labor issues” like minimum wage laws and collective bargaining.
Relative to the total population, cities attract a younger and more educated workforce. They also tend to be home to more immigrants and racial and sexual minorities. Cities are, in short, the home of the Democratic base. The greater the population density, the bluer they become.
Of the 10 most populous US cities, only San Diego has a Republican mayor. (Its previous mayor, a Democrat, resigned in 2013 in the wake of a sexual harassment scandal.) Metropolitan areas of at least one million people voted for Barack Obama by a spread of eight points in 2012. By contrast, Mitt Romney won towns and cities with fewer than 250,000 people by a spread of 13 points, and cities of up to 500,000 people by 3 points.
Even the deep-red swathes of the political map are studded with blue urban outposts, such as Houston, Phoenix and Salt Lake City. While Texas conservatives still talk about seceding from the Union, the state’s cities have already seceded from Texas, at least in spirit. Nearly a dozen cities in Texas have implemented a plastic-bag tax. Houston elected an openly lesbian mayor.
But the voices and votes of city dwellers are systematically discounted by our political structure, and majority white, rural voters are overrepresented. This allows the GOP to paralyze Congress and makes progressive policies impossible to pass at the federal level, regardless of public support.
On energy policy, for example, a Pew Research Center poll found that more Americans oppose fracking (47 percent) than support it (41 percent).
Support for progressive economic policy is even stronger. Polling by Pew and USA Today found that 73 percent of Americans favor a minimum wage hike to $10.10. Eighty-eight percent support paid sick days for workers.
Yet the structural imbalances in Congress, aggressively exploited by the GOP, make the prospect of passing federal legislation on any of these issues next to nil.
Because Democratic voters tend to cluster in urban areas, it is easy to group them into a few districts — leaving vast rural areas, and many suburbs, safe for Republicans. As a result, only a small fraction of House races are competitive. Of 435 seats in the House, 373 will be safe for incumbents in 2016, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan organization FairVote.
Periodic redistricting, required by the Constitution after each decennial census, makes the problem worse if it becomes a hyper-partisan process, as it was after the Republicans’ big wins in 2010 at both the state and congressional levels. In 2012, in the seven states in which Republicans redrew House districts, voters preferred Republicans by a slight margin — 16.7 million to 16.4 million votes. But that small edge in votes yielded more than twice as many seats for the GOP — 73 to 34.
The House races in North Carolina were perhaps the worst-case scenario. The newly elected Republican General Assembly used redistricting to gerrymander the Democratic vote into just a few districts in 2012. As a result, Democrats took only four of 13 seats while winning 51 percent of the popular vote. The outcome was so skewed that it prompted a Republican, writing in the Charlotte Business Journal, to call for a nonpartisan redistricting process.
His party did not heed his advice. Using state legislatures to dramatically skew the makeup of Congress was, in fact, the plan all along. In the run-up to the 2010 election, the GOP invested more than $30 million in the Redistricting Majority Project, or REDMAP, which targeted state-level races that held the most potential to shape the subsequent redistricting process. REDMAP invested more than $1 million in six candidates for the Ohio House, for example. Five of them won. It spent another million on three winning candidates in Pennsylvania.
REDMAP was the start of a state-level coup for the GOP. Republicans controlled 36 of the 98 partisan state chambers before the 2010 election. After the election, they controlled 57. Democrats have steadily lost ground since — partly because of their own neglect, and partly because of the GOP’s highly organized, well-funded efforts. After the 2014 election, Republicans controlled 68 chambers, including all of the South except for the Kentucky House of Delegates.
While the House has become fiercely anti-democratic, the Senate takes it to an entirely different level. Red states and rural, white voters hold power in the Senate that is outrageously out of proportion to their numbers.
Though the five most populous states — California, Texas, Florida, New York and Illinois — account for about 37 percent of the US population, they have just 10 percent of the votes in the Senate. They are also home to the nation’s four largest cities: New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and Houston. Only two of these states are red.
Meanwhile, the five least populous states — South Dakota, North Dakota, Alaska, Vermont and Wyoming — account for about 1 percent of the population but have 10 percent of Senate votes. Their most populous city is Anchorage, Alaska. With a population of about 300,000, it is the 63rd largest US city. Vermont is the only blue state.
This rural bias correlates with a profound racial basis. Whites are about 82 percent of the population in the five smallest states. In the 2010 Census, they made up 78 percent of the total rural population. Yet they account for just 63 percent of the US population overall.
The upshot is that sparsely populated, predominately white regions of the nation have become vastly over-represented in both the House and the Senate. Filibustering now allows 21 states, representing little more than 10 percent of the US population, to block any bill from moving forward.
These rural, white biases, which are the root of the often-lamented “dysfunction” of Congress, have made cities into the most fertile ground for progressive policies.
Those hopes are reflected in a spate of recent book titles on the subject, such as The Metropolitan Revolution: How Cities and Metros are Fixing Our Broken Politics and Fragile Economy and If Mayors Ruled the World: Dysfunctional Nations, Rising Cities.
Benjamin Barber, author of If Mayors Ruled the World, writes that cities might “rescue democracy” and “find ways to help us govern our world democratically and bottom-up.”
Progressives living in Rahm Emanuel’s neoliberal Chicago, or Michael Nutter’s Philadelphia, might object — with good reason — to the premise that mayoral rule brings about a progressive utopia. Still, it’s undeniable that the democratic energy blocked by Congress is seeping into and transforming local politics. The recent city-led push for higher wages is one manifestation. In 2014, according to the National Employment Law Project, 11 cities approved some form of minimum wage hike.
The San Diego City Council voted last year to require employers to give paid sick leave. It also voted to raise the minimum wage to $11.50. (Pushback from the business community forced a referendum; voters will decide these issues in June.) San Francisco approved a minimum wage hike to $15 an hour by 2018, and in March, Oakland’s minimum wage increased to $12.25.
In Los Angeles, meanwhile, the city council voted last fall to raise the minimum wage for hotel workers to $15.37 an hour. It takes effect this July for hotels with at least 300 rooms and in July 2016 for those with at least 150 rooms. There is now discussion in the city about raising wages more broadly, with Democratic Mayor Eric Garcetti supporting a hike to $13.25.
Portland, Maine, has also joined the movement. In mid-April, a City Council committee approved a hike to $8.75 and sent the proposal for a full vote.
Portland’s move came after Republican Governor Paul LePage vetoed an increase passed by the state legislature in 2013. LePage alleged a populist rationale for his veto, saying, “It is time to put Maine people before politics.” He is now collaborating with Republican state legislators to pass a bill that would prohibit cities from enacting wage hikes.
How successfully Republicans can adapt to this new blue battleground is an open question. Republicans are taking progressives’ urban offensive seriously and experimenting with strategies to fight back.
In the red regions of the country, state legislatures have become tools for obstruction. Eleven of them (all GOP-controlled) have passed laws preempting paid sick time. Fifteen states have done so on the issue of the minimum wage — nearly half of them since 2010.
Republicans are also moving swiftly to roll back or block city-led environmental initiatives, especially those related to fracking.
In February, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that cities and counties have no authority to regulate fracking independent of state law. The ruling came in response to a ban on the practice by several cities across the state.
The question is now in the spotlight in several other states. Bills that would prevent cities from regulating fracking advanced in the Florida, Oklahoma and Texas legislatures in April. The Oklahoma bill was proposed after a state report linked a 600-fold increase in earthquake activity to wastewater wells associated with oil and gas drilling. A recent University of Texas poll found that 58 percent of people polled nationwide believe cities should have the power to regulate fracking, and only 25 percent believe they should not.
Texas House members averaged more than $25,000 in contributions from oil and gas companies in 2013 and 2014, according to a Texans for Public Justice report.
One of the Texas legislators supporting such efforts is Republican Phil King, the national chair of ALEC’s board of directors. Though ALEC does not claim involvement with the legislation in Texas, its website offers a model bill to give state governments the sole authority to regulate fracking. It was approved by ALEC’s board in 2009 and re-approved early this year. The bill was originally aimed against federal intrusions on state authority but is adaptable to threats from local ordinances as well.
Preemption laws that nullify progressive urban policies are just the latest salvo in the GOP’s long-term campaign to exploit the overrepresentation of white, rural voters in our political system. That campaign is essentially the story of the modern GOP. One of its main tactics is old-fashioned political hardball.
Consider the push for stricter voter requirements to address the myth of voter fraud. Seven of the 11 states with the highest African-American voter turnout in 2008 have subsequently passed laws making it more difficult to vote, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. Similarly, since 2008, nine of the 12 states with the fastest-growing Hispanic population have passed new voting restrictions.
While gerrymandering dilutes the power of minority voters, the new restrictions aim to deter minorities from voting altogether. In 2013, for example, North Carolina passed several new restrictions, including a state-issued ID requirement, a reduced early voting period and the end of same-day voter registration. Each of these “reforms” disproportionately affects minorities. Though African-Americans account for 23 percent of the state’s registered voters, for example, they accounted for 33 percent of voters who used the early voting period in 2012 — and 34 percent of those who didn’t have a state-issued ID. The state legislature passed the restrictions just a month after the US Supreme Court struck down critical parts of the Voting Rights Act.
Along with its new bare-knuckle politics, the GOP’s campaign to exploit the rural biases in Congress has a long, compelling narrative.
It’s the story of a victimized but righteous people: the “silent majority” that Richard Nixon appealed to in his 1968 presidential campaign, the “moral majority” of the 1980s, the “values voters” of the 1990s, the “real America” of Sarah Palin and the “producer class” of the tea party. The virtuous, so the story goes, are under merciless assault by those who aim to impose godless values on the nation. At an ACCE conference last winter, a representative of the American Petroleum Institute captured the essence of the narrative perfectly, if absurdly, by drawing a parallel between the rise of Germany’s Nazi Party and “what I see happening in our small towns on issues like fracking.”
That narrative plays to the fears of the GOP’s base, rural voters and conservative Christians who see the advance of social justice — especially in the realms of feminism and LGBT equality — as the destruction of the traditional moral order. The truth of the narrative is largely irrelevant. For conservative Christians, it evokes familiar biblical themes and stories of persecuted believers. For rural, white voters, it plays to fears of being left behind by an increasingly diverse, urban society.
The corrupting influence of money in politics is often decried, especially since the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision. But in truth, the corruption goes far deeper than the influence of money. The wealthy are empowered by the outrageously out-of-balance influence of a small fraction of the population that perceives itself as under siege — and is thus highly mobilized. An alliance of plutocrats and rural overlords paralyzes our national politics, despite broad support for at least modestly progressive reforms on most major issues.
In the emerging battle for control of US cities, the stakes are high. For Republicans, the critical question is just how far — and for how long — they can push their exploitation of the rural white vote. There has been much talk about how the GOP will be forced to broaden its appeal to minorities and younger voters, but that assumes our elections actually reflect the will of the people. What if the GOP’s structural advantages in Congress give it no incentive to reform, allowing it to prosper as an obstructionist party that appeals primarily to the rural white vote?
For progressives, the critical question is: Can the principle of local control address urgent national issues, especially in the realms of climate change and economic inequality?
“Power concedes nothing without a demand,” Frederick Douglass wrote. Injustice and wrongdoing will, as Douglass put it, “continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both.” Cities are beginning to demand an end to our national political paralysis and to implement policies that most of us agree on. Conservatives are pushing back. The evidence suggests that the war between urban America and a political system radically rigged against it is just beginning.
by Theo Anderson
Few ideas are more powerful in US politics than local control. The South rallied around states’ rights during the Civil War. Conservatives rage at the federal government for meddling in local matters.
But when local control favors progressives, it turns out to be “a form of collectivism” rather than a cherished conservative principle.
That’s what Republican Texas Governor Greg Abbott recently called the trend of city-level bans on plastic bags, fracking and tree-cutting. They form “a patchwork quilt of bans and rules and regulations,” Abbott said, “that are eroding the Texas model” and turning the state into California.
Texas legislators have responded with proposals to preempt local laws, including a bill that would prevent local governments from issuing any ordinance that “conflicts with or is more stringent than a state statute or rule.”
Such bills blocking progressive laws are growing in popularity across the United States, especially in GOP-controlled legislatures. Last year, for example, when Oklahoma City debated raising its minimum wage to $10.10, the state legislature passed a law preventing cities from enacting wage increases.
Progressive muscle-flexing by urban America on the minimum wage, fracking and other key economic and environmental issues poses a serious challenge to the GOP’s program of obstruction in Congress. It also threatens the deep bias of our national politics toward red states and conservative ideology. That makes subverting the power of cities an urgent task for conservatives, even if it means becoming “meddling bureaucrats” themselves.
As a staff member of the right-wing American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) said last year while discussing the trend toward minimum-wage increases: “Perhaps the biggest threat comes from the local level.”
ALEC has been a key actor in the push for state-level preemption laws. It now aims to push local conservatism directly with an initiative called the American City Council Exchange (ACCE), which will create model legislation at the local level, just as ALEC does for state legislatures. “Working together,” according to the ACCE mission statement, “members learn from others’ challenges and evaluate how free-market policies work when applied to local governments.”
ACCE will hold its second annual meeting this summer in San Diego, including a session on “local labor issues” like minimum wage laws and collective bargaining.
Relative to the total population, cities attract a younger and more educated workforce. They also tend to be home to more immigrants and racial and sexual minorities. Cities are, in short, the home of the Democratic base. The greater the population density, the bluer they become.
Of the 10 most populous US cities, only San Diego has a Republican mayor. (Its previous mayor, a Democrat, resigned in 2013 in the wake of a sexual harassment scandal.) Metropolitan areas of at least one million people voted for Barack Obama by a spread of eight points in 2012. By contrast, Mitt Romney won towns and cities with fewer than 250,000 people by a spread of 13 points, and cities of up to 500,000 people by 3 points.
Even the deep-red swathes of the political map are studded with blue urban outposts, such as Houston, Phoenix and Salt Lake City. While Texas conservatives still talk about seceding from the Union, the state’s cities have already seceded from Texas, at least in spirit. Nearly a dozen cities in Texas have implemented a plastic-bag tax. Houston elected an openly lesbian mayor.
But the voices and votes of city dwellers are systematically discounted by our political structure, and majority white, rural voters are overrepresented. This allows the GOP to paralyze Congress and makes progressive policies impossible to pass at the federal level, regardless of public support.
On energy policy, for example, a Pew Research Center poll found that more Americans oppose fracking (47 percent) than support it (41 percent).
Support for progressive economic policy is even stronger. Polling by Pew and USA Today found that 73 percent of Americans favor a minimum wage hike to $10.10. Eighty-eight percent support paid sick days for workers.
Yet the structural imbalances in Congress, aggressively exploited by the GOP, make the prospect of passing federal legislation on any of these issues next to nil.
Because Democratic voters tend to cluster in urban areas, it is easy to group them into a few districts — leaving vast rural areas, and many suburbs, safe for Republicans. As a result, only a small fraction of House races are competitive. Of 435 seats in the House, 373 will be safe for incumbents in 2016, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan organization FairVote.
Periodic redistricting, required by the Constitution after each decennial census, makes the problem worse if it becomes a hyper-partisan process, as it was after the Republicans’ big wins in 2010 at both the state and congressional levels. In 2012, in the seven states in which Republicans redrew House districts, voters preferred Republicans by a slight margin — 16.7 million to 16.4 million votes. But that small edge in votes yielded more than twice as many seats for the GOP — 73 to 34.
The House races in North Carolina were perhaps the worst-case scenario. The newly elected Republican General Assembly used redistricting to gerrymander the Democratic vote into just a few districts in 2012. As a result, Democrats took only four of 13 seats while winning 51 percent of the popular vote. The outcome was so skewed that it prompted a Republican, writing in the Charlotte Business Journal, to call for a nonpartisan redistricting process.
His party did not heed his advice. Using state legislatures to dramatically skew the makeup of Congress was, in fact, the plan all along. In the run-up to the 2010 election, the GOP invested more than $30 million in the Redistricting Majority Project, or REDMAP, which targeted state-level races that held the most potential to shape the subsequent redistricting process. REDMAP invested more than $1 million in six candidates for the Ohio House, for example. Five of them won. It spent another million on three winning candidates in Pennsylvania.
REDMAP was the start of a state-level coup for the GOP. Republicans controlled 36 of the 98 partisan state chambers before the 2010 election. After the election, they controlled 57. Democrats have steadily lost ground since — partly because of their own neglect, and partly because of the GOP’s highly organized, well-funded efforts. After the 2014 election, Republicans controlled 68 chambers, including all of the South except for the Kentucky House of Delegates.
While the House has become fiercely anti-democratic, the Senate takes it to an entirely different level. Red states and rural, white voters hold power in the Senate that is outrageously out of proportion to their numbers.
Though the five most populous states — California, Texas, Florida, New York and Illinois — account for about 37 percent of the US population, they have just 10 percent of the votes in the Senate. They are also home to the nation’s four largest cities: New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and Houston. Only two of these states are red.
Meanwhile, the five least populous states — South Dakota, North Dakota, Alaska, Vermont and Wyoming — account for about 1 percent of the population but have 10 percent of Senate votes. Their most populous city is Anchorage, Alaska. With a population of about 300,000, it is the 63rd largest US city. Vermont is the only blue state.
This rural bias correlates with a profound racial basis. Whites are about 82 percent of the population in the five smallest states. In the 2010 Census, they made up 78 percent of the total rural population. Yet they account for just 63 percent of the US population overall.
The upshot is that sparsely populated, predominately white regions of the nation have become vastly over-represented in both the House and the Senate. Filibustering now allows 21 states, representing little more than 10 percent of the US population, to block any bill from moving forward.
These rural, white biases, which are the root of the often-lamented “dysfunction” of Congress, have made cities into the most fertile ground for progressive policies.
Those hopes are reflected in a spate of recent book titles on the subject, such as The Metropolitan Revolution: How Cities and Metros are Fixing Our Broken Politics and Fragile Economy and If Mayors Ruled the World: Dysfunctional Nations, Rising Cities.
Benjamin Barber, author of If Mayors Ruled the World, writes that cities might “rescue democracy” and “find ways to help us govern our world democratically and bottom-up.”
Progressives living in Rahm Emanuel’s neoliberal Chicago, or Michael Nutter’s Philadelphia, might object — with good reason — to the premise that mayoral rule brings about a progressive utopia. Still, it’s undeniable that the democratic energy blocked by Congress is seeping into and transforming local politics. The recent city-led push for higher wages is one manifestation. In 2014, according to the National Employment Law Project, 11 cities approved some form of minimum wage hike.
The San Diego City Council voted last year to require employers to give paid sick leave. It also voted to raise the minimum wage to $11.50. (Pushback from the business community forced a referendum; voters will decide these issues in June.) San Francisco approved a minimum wage hike to $15 an hour by 2018, and in March, Oakland’s minimum wage increased to $12.25.
In Los Angeles, meanwhile, the city council voted last fall to raise the minimum wage for hotel workers to $15.37 an hour. It takes effect this July for hotels with at least 300 rooms and in July 2016 for those with at least 150 rooms. There is now discussion in the city about raising wages more broadly, with Democratic Mayor Eric Garcetti supporting a hike to $13.25.
Portland, Maine, has also joined the movement. In mid-April, a City Council committee approved a hike to $8.75 and sent the proposal for a full vote.
Portland’s move came after Republican Governor Paul LePage vetoed an increase passed by the state legislature in 2013. LePage alleged a populist rationale for his veto, saying, “It is time to put Maine people before politics.” He is now collaborating with Republican state legislators to pass a bill that would prohibit cities from enacting wage hikes.
How successfully Republicans can adapt to this new blue battleground is an open question. Republicans are taking progressives’ urban offensive seriously and experimenting with strategies to fight back.
In the red regions of the country, state legislatures have become tools for obstruction. Eleven of them (all GOP-controlled) have passed laws preempting paid sick time. Fifteen states have done so on the issue of the minimum wage — nearly half of them since 2010.
Republicans are also moving swiftly to roll back or block city-led environmental initiatives, especially those related to fracking.
In February, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that cities and counties have no authority to regulate fracking independent of state law. The ruling came in response to a ban on the practice by several cities across the state.
The question is now in the spotlight in several other states. Bills that would prevent cities from regulating fracking advanced in the Florida, Oklahoma and Texas legislatures in April. The Oklahoma bill was proposed after a state report linked a 600-fold increase in earthquake activity to wastewater wells associated with oil and gas drilling. A recent University of Texas poll found that 58 percent of people polled nationwide believe cities should have the power to regulate fracking, and only 25 percent believe they should not.
Texas House members averaged more than $25,000 in contributions from oil and gas companies in 2013 and 2014, according to a Texans for Public Justice report.
One of the Texas legislators supporting such efforts is Republican Phil King, the national chair of ALEC’s board of directors. Though ALEC does not claim involvement with the legislation in Texas, its website offers a model bill to give state governments the sole authority to regulate fracking. It was approved by ALEC’s board in 2009 and re-approved early this year. The bill was originally aimed against federal intrusions on state authority but is adaptable to threats from local ordinances as well.
Preemption laws that nullify progressive urban policies are just the latest salvo in the GOP’s long-term campaign to exploit the overrepresentation of white, rural voters in our political system. That campaign is essentially the story of the modern GOP. One of its main tactics is old-fashioned political hardball.
Consider the push for stricter voter requirements to address the myth of voter fraud. Seven of the 11 states with the highest African-American voter turnout in 2008 have subsequently passed laws making it more difficult to vote, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. Similarly, since 2008, nine of the 12 states with the fastest-growing Hispanic population have passed new voting restrictions.
While gerrymandering dilutes the power of minority voters, the new restrictions aim to deter minorities from voting altogether. In 2013, for example, North Carolina passed several new restrictions, including a state-issued ID requirement, a reduced early voting period and the end of same-day voter registration. Each of these “reforms” disproportionately affects minorities. Though African-Americans account for 23 percent of the state’s registered voters, for example, they accounted for 33 percent of voters who used the early voting period in 2012 — and 34 percent of those who didn’t have a state-issued ID. The state legislature passed the restrictions just a month after the US Supreme Court struck down critical parts of the Voting Rights Act.
Along with its new bare-knuckle politics, the GOP’s campaign to exploit the rural biases in Congress has a long, compelling narrative.
It’s the story of a victimized but righteous people: the “silent majority” that Richard Nixon appealed to in his 1968 presidential campaign, the “moral majority” of the 1980s, the “values voters” of the 1990s, the “real America” of Sarah Palin and the “producer class” of the tea party. The virtuous, so the story goes, are under merciless assault by those who aim to impose godless values on the nation. At an ACCE conference last winter, a representative of the American Petroleum Institute captured the essence of the narrative perfectly, if absurdly, by drawing a parallel between the rise of Germany’s Nazi Party and “what I see happening in our small towns on issues like fracking.”
That narrative plays to the fears of the GOP’s base, rural voters and conservative Christians who see the advance of social justice — especially in the realms of feminism and LGBT equality — as the destruction of the traditional moral order. The truth of the narrative is largely irrelevant. For conservative Christians, it evokes familiar biblical themes and stories of persecuted believers. For rural, white voters, it plays to fears of being left behind by an increasingly diverse, urban society.
The corrupting influence of money in politics is often decried, especially since the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision. But in truth, the corruption goes far deeper than the influence of money. The wealthy are empowered by the outrageously out-of-balance influence of a small fraction of the population that perceives itself as under siege — and is thus highly mobilized. An alliance of plutocrats and rural overlords paralyzes our national politics, despite broad support for at least modestly progressive reforms on most major issues.
In the emerging battle for control of US cities, the stakes are high. For Republicans, the critical question is just how far — and for how long — they can push their exploitation of the rural white vote. There has been much talk about how the GOP will be forced to broaden its appeal to minorities and younger voters, but that assumes our elections actually reflect the will of the people. What if the GOP’s structural advantages in Congress give it no incentive to reform, allowing it to prosper as an obstructionist party that appeals primarily to the rural white vote?
For progressives, the critical question is: Can the principle of local control address urgent national issues, especially in the realms of climate change and economic inequality?
“Power concedes nothing without a demand,” Frederick Douglass wrote. Injustice and wrongdoing will, as Douglass put it, “continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both.” Cities are beginning to demand an end to our national political paralysis and to implement policies that most of us agree on. Conservatives are pushing back. The evidence suggests that the war between urban America and a political system radically rigged against it is just beginning.
What's important? Tax exemption...
Rove’s ‘new’ group isn’t new, and that could be the point
by Robert Maguire
Karl Rove and his colleagues at the dark money behemoth Crossroads GPS have a “new” 501(c)(4), and according to reports, they’re going to use it in much the same way they have used GPS itself — as a conduit for anonymous, political money in the 2016 elections.
But the group, One Nation, isn’t “new,” and that’s probably the point.
Virginia state incorporation records show that the operatives who run Crossroads simply took over an existing 501(c)(4), and they likely did so because the group had the one thing that has been elusive to Crossroads since its founding in 2010: An approved application for tax exemption from the IRS.
Grasping that fact is central to understanding why Crossroads would need to form a new 501(c)(4) to do what it — the largest of all politically active nonprofits — has done for nearly five years. Obtaining the more durable shield of IRS recognition likely has as much to do with this move by Crossroads as its reported aim of keeping the Crossroads brand relevant in a crowded field of GOP groups trying to influence the 2016 elections.
Over the last two weeks, media outlets have talked up One Nation as the “new nonprofit group” that will be spending millions on television and radio ads aimed at softening up voters in three states where Senate Republicans are vulnerable. This “new” group will work in tandem with a super PAC called Senate Leadership Fund to help the GOP hold its majority in the Senate. Essentially, Crossroads is taking a page out the playbook developed by Harry Reid and the Democratic operatives behind liberal dark money group Patriot Majority USA and its sister super PAC Senate Majority PAC.
But One Nation is as “new” as a 2010 Camry with $2 million in the trunk, a fresh coat of paint and a different driver behind the wheel. That’s because One Nation was, until recently, Alliance for America’s Future, a five-year-old 501(c)(4) social welfare organization formed by the GOP consultants that made up the “BK” in BKM Strategies — Barry Bennett and Kara Ahern, respectively. Mary Cheney was the “M” in the firm, and the Alliance for America’s Future had other ties to the Cheney network. But the group hasn’t made independent expenditures since the 2010 cycle, when it spent more than $700,000; it also spent heavily that cycle for ads promoting Nevada GOP gubernatorial candidate Brian Sandoval.
While Crossroads GPS has been waiting for the IRS to approve its application for exempt status since Miley Cyrus was Hannah Montana, Alliance for America’s Future — which is represented by the same law firm and applied for an exemption the same month as GPS — was given the IRS seal of approval within weeks, in July 2010. Now, by taking the reins at Alliance for America’s Future, the folks at Crossroads are at the controls of a group that comes pre-packaged with an IRS exemption. And there’s already a link between the organizations: Crossroads helped fund the Republican Governors Public Policy Committee in 2010, a year when the governors’ group provided more than half the money spent by the Alliance for America’s Future — which Nevada courts found out when they forced AAF to disclose three years later.
Marcus Owens, a nonprofit tax lawyer at Loeb & Loeb and former head of the IRS Tax Exempt Division, agrees that the exemption could play a role in the decision by Crossroads operatives to take over the Alliance — particularly given the level of uncertainty that surrounds the Crossroads application for exemption.
“Having an already exempt fallback organization makes sense as a way to continue activities,” Owens said.
Lloyd Hitoshi Mayer, professor of nonprofit tax law at Notre Dame, calls the move “a well-known strategy in such situations,” going back at least to the Christian Coalition’s decision in 1999 to shift its operations to its Texas chapter, which already had exempt status, and rename it the Christian Coalition of America.
With One Nation under its wing, Crossroads GPS could engage in a similar shift. If it is denied status by the IRS — or if it decides to withdraw its application altogether — its operations can move seamlessly under the umbrella of another 501(c)(4) that already has the IRS’s seal of approval and whose legal gymnastics are already choreographed by the same law firm.
Owens and Mayer stressed that such a move doesn’t mean that the Crossroads operatives are free to engage in politics when they’re at the helm of One Nation; it just shifts oversight to the much less watchful eye of the agency’s auditors. “Such a shift doesn’t escape the possibility of IRS scrutiny,” Owens told OpenSecrets Blog, “but it moves the matter from the application context to the audit context, where the IRS capabilities are spread much more thinly.”
Thin indeed: a 2014 report by the Center for Public Integrity cited statistics showing that the IRS only audited 7 out of every 1,000 yearly returns in 2013. Compare that to the application process, which requires each 501(c) application to be approved or denied by an actual person, and it becomes clear why circumventing that process is such a boon to the operatives who run Crossroads.
The icing on the cake is that this move gives Crossroads a way to slide out from under its languishing application without being forced to pay the corporate income taxes it would have to pay if it received a denial from the IRS — a liability that already got smaller when the statute of limitations on its earliest activities ran out in April. Crossroads could withdraw its application and terminate, potentially without the repercussions of negative determination by the IRS.
This wouldn’t be a risk-free strategy on Crossroad’s part. As Owens points out, this kind of move from an active organization “has historically been an audit trigger.” Mayer says that “in theory the IRS could retroactively attempt to force the organization into 527 status for earlier years and require disclosure of contributors to the organization during those years,” but he doesn’t know of an instance where that has happened.
But while such a scenario poses uncertain risks for Crossroads GPS, those risks are not transferred to One Nation, because it is a separate organization, not technically affiliated with Crossroads.
alliance for America's futureRepresentatives of Crossroads GPS and One Nation did not return calls and messages from OpenSecrets Blog asking them to comment, but the idea that Crossroads might use AAF as a new, approved Crossroads isn’t so far-fetched. AAF is no stranger to dark money politics, it has close ties to consultants and the GOP establishment, and it comes with a network of IRS-recognized 501(c)(4)s that can serve either as surrogates, or as pools of money One Nation can use to churn funds around to inflate its social welfare spending.
The $2 million that the renamed One Nation has already reportedly spent in 2015 is more than the organization has spent in any of the last three full years on all of its activities, which suggests the group may have already become a recipient of the kind of mega-donor money that Crossroads specializes in.
Then there’s the network that surrounds AAF, organizations operated from the same address and by the same people; like AAF, they’ve mostly been dormant over the last few years. It offers the reconstituted Crossroads the kind of security that is prized by the snarl of nonprofits affiliated with the Koch donor network. The Koch network is comprised of more than a dozen 501(c)(4)s and 501(c)(6) groups, any of which could act as a conduit for money or a political spender if the need arises.
Crossroads appears to be poised, then, to make a clean break from its application for exempt status, and — if donors will support it — spend big through “new” nonprofits in 2016.
by Robert Maguire
Karl Rove and his colleagues at the dark money behemoth Crossroads GPS have a “new” 501(c)(4), and according to reports, they’re going to use it in much the same way they have used GPS itself — as a conduit for anonymous, political money in the 2016 elections.
But the group, One Nation, isn’t “new,” and that’s probably the point.
Virginia state incorporation records show that the operatives who run Crossroads simply took over an existing 501(c)(4), and they likely did so because the group had the one thing that has been elusive to Crossroads since its founding in 2010: An approved application for tax exemption from the IRS.
Grasping that fact is central to understanding why Crossroads would need to form a new 501(c)(4) to do what it — the largest of all politically active nonprofits — has done for nearly five years. Obtaining the more durable shield of IRS recognition likely has as much to do with this move by Crossroads as its reported aim of keeping the Crossroads brand relevant in a crowded field of GOP groups trying to influence the 2016 elections.
Over the last two weeks, media outlets have talked up One Nation as the “new nonprofit group” that will be spending millions on television and radio ads aimed at softening up voters in three states where Senate Republicans are vulnerable. This “new” group will work in tandem with a super PAC called Senate Leadership Fund to help the GOP hold its majority in the Senate. Essentially, Crossroads is taking a page out the playbook developed by Harry Reid and the Democratic operatives behind liberal dark money group Patriot Majority USA and its sister super PAC Senate Majority PAC.
But One Nation is as “new” as a 2010 Camry with $2 million in the trunk, a fresh coat of paint and a different driver behind the wheel. That’s because One Nation was, until recently, Alliance for America’s Future, a five-year-old 501(c)(4) social welfare organization formed by the GOP consultants that made up the “BK” in BKM Strategies — Barry Bennett and Kara Ahern, respectively. Mary Cheney was the “M” in the firm, and the Alliance for America’s Future had other ties to the Cheney network. But the group hasn’t made independent expenditures since the 2010 cycle, when it spent more than $700,000; it also spent heavily that cycle for ads promoting Nevada GOP gubernatorial candidate Brian Sandoval.
While Crossroads GPS has been waiting for the IRS to approve its application for exempt status since Miley Cyrus was Hannah Montana, Alliance for America’s Future — which is represented by the same law firm and applied for an exemption the same month as GPS — was given the IRS seal of approval within weeks, in July 2010. Now, by taking the reins at Alliance for America’s Future, the folks at Crossroads are at the controls of a group that comes pre-packaged with an IRS exemption. And there’s already a link between the organizations: Crossroads helped fund the Republican Governors Public Policy Committee in 2010, a year when the governors’ group provided more than half the money spent by the Alliance for America’s Future — which Nevada courts found out when they forced AAF to disclose three years later.
Marcus Owens, a nonprofit tax lawyer at Loeb & Loeb and former head of the IRS Tax Exempt Division, agrees that the exemption could play a role in the decision by Crossroads operatives to take over the Alliance — particularly given the level of uncertainty that surrounds the Crossroads application for exemption.
“Having an already exempt fallback organization makes sense as a way to continue activities,” Owens said.
Lloyd Hitoshi Mayer, professor of nonprofit tax law at Notre Dame, calls the move “a well-known strategy in such situations,” going back at least to the Christian Coalition’s decision in 1999 to shift its operations to its Texas chapter, which already had exempt status, and rename it the Christian Coalition of America.
With One Nation under its wing, Crossroads GPS could engage in a similar shift. If it is denied status by the IRS — or if it decides to withdraw its application altogether — its operations can move seamlessly under the umbrella of another 501(c)(4) that already has the IRS’s seal of approval and whose legal gymnastics are already choreographed by the same law firm.
Owens and Mayer stressed that such a move doesn’t mean that the Crossroads operatives are free to engage in politics when they’re at the helm of One Nation; it just shifts oversight to the much less watchful eye of the agency’s auditors. “Such a shift doesn’t escape the possibility of IRS scrutiny,” Owens told OpenSecrets Blog, “but it moves the matter from the application context to the audit context, where the IRS capabilities are spread much more thinly.”
Thin indeed: a 2014 report by the Center for Public Integrity cited statistics showing that the IRS only audited 7 out of every 1,000 yearly returns in 2013. Compare that to the application process, which requires each 501(c) application to be approved or denied by an actual person, and it becomes clear why circumventing that process is such a boon to the operatives who run Crossroads.
The icing on the cake is that this move gives Crossroads a way to slide out from under its languishing application without being forced to pay the corporate income taxes it would have to pay if it received a denial from the IRS — a liability that already got smaller when the statute of limitations on its earliest activities ran out in April. Crossroads could withdraw its application and terminate, potentially without the repercussions of negative determination by the IRS.
This wouldn’t be a risk-free strategy on Crossroad’s part. As Owens points out, this kind of move from an active organization “has historically been an audit trigger.” Mayer says that “in theory the IRS could retroactively attempt to force the organization into 527 status for earlier years and require disclosure of contributors to the organization during those years,” but he doesn’t know of an instance where that has happened.
But while such a scenario poses uncertain risks for Crossroads GPS, those risks are not transferred to One Nation, because it is a separate organization, not technically affiliated with Crossroads.
alliance for America's futureRepresentatives of Crossroads GPS and One Nation did not return calls and messages from OpenSecrets Blog asking them to comment, but the idea that Crossroads might use AAF as a new, approved Crossroads isn’t so far-fetched. AAF is no stranger to dark money politics, it has close ties to consultants and the GOP establishment, and it comes with a network of IRS-recognized 501(c)(4)s that can serve either as surrogates, or as pools of money One Nation can use to churn funds around to inflate its social welfare spending.
The $2 million that the renamed One Nation has already reportedly spent in 2015 is more than the organization has spent in any of the last three full years on all of its activities, which suggests the group may have already become a recipient of the kind of mega-donor money that Crossroads specializes in.
Then there’s the network that surrounds AAF, organizations operated from the same address and by the same people; like AAF, they’ve mostly been dormant over the last few years. It offers the reconstituted Crossroads the kind of security that is prized by the snarl of nonprofits affiliated with the Koch donor network. The Koch network is comprised of more than a dozen 501(c)(4)s and 501(c)(6) groups, any of which could act as a conduit for money or a political spender if the need arises.
Crossroads appears to be poised, then, to make a clean break from its application for exempt status, and — if donors will support it — spend big through “new” nonprofits in 2016.
O’Malley bid
O’Malley backers launch super PAC ahead of Democrat’s presidential bid
By John Wagner
Associates of former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley are launching a super PAC intended to bolster the Democrat’s prospects as he formally announces his long shot presidential bid in Baltimore on Saturday.
Money raised by Generation Forward will be used to run an independent campaign on O’Malley’s behalf in early nominating states, its founders said. The political action committee’s name is aimed at sending a specific message: that 52-year-old O’Malley is better suited to represent younger generations than 67-year-old Hillary Rodham Clinton, the Democratic front-runner.
“This is not your grandmother’s super PAC,” Damian O’Doherty, the group’s chief executive, said in an interview Wednesday. He described plans for outreach on the ground and via digital media, as well as collaboration with other like-minded groups — a departure, he said, from the traditional super PAC model of simply raising money to air TV ads.
It is too early to tell what impact the group might have — O’Doherty declined to discuss fundraising goals — but its arrival is further testament to the changed world of campaign financing.
In the wake of the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, super PACs aligned with presidential candidates have become commonplace, particularly on the Republican side. Unlike candidate committees, which limit individual contributions to $2,700, super PACs face no restrictions on how much they can accept from donors.
O’Malley voiced reservations about the use of super PACs during a trip to New Hampshire this month, as he was peppered with questions about reports that Clinton gave her blessing to the efforts of Priorities USA Action, a group supporting her, even as she decried the role of money in politics.
“I would hope that in the Democratic Party that all of our candidates might discourage super PACs from being involved,” O’Malley said. He added that he was wrestling with “how we can put forward a campaign of principle and substance, a campaign that acknowledges what’s wrong with our [financing] system, and yet be able to compete.”
O’Doherty said that he had not spoken with O’Malley’s soon-to-be campaign aides about the establishment of a super PAC, pointing out that he did not “need or expect any blessing from Martin O’Malley.”
An O’Malley spokeswoman did not return a phone call requesting comment.
By law, once candidates declare for office, they cannot coordinate with super PACs supporting them. Candidates can appear at events for super PAC donors, as long as they do not seek large donations themselves.
O’Doherty, 41, the co-founder of a Baltimore-based public affairs firm, is active in Maryland politics and has known O’Malley for decades. He is starting the PAC with Ron Boehmer, 25, who served as O’Malley’s press secretary shortly before the governor left office in January. O’Doherty and Boehmer work in the same firm as Steve Kearney, a former O’Malley communications director. O’Doherty said Kearney has no role in the super PAC.
O’Doherty said that his group eventually wants to support other forward-looking candidates who understand issues, such as college debt, that are burdening the younger generation. But for now, he said, “job one is to advance the Martin O’Malley candidacy as far as possible.”
O’Doherty said that his group had secured office space in the Dupont Circle area of the District and was planning to expand its presence around the country by setting up shop at locations offered by WeWork, a provider of shared office space for entrepreneurs.
By John Wagner
Associates of former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley are launching a super PAC intended to bolster the Democrat’s prospects as he formally announces his long shot presidential bid in Baltimore on Saturday.
Money raised by Generation Forward will be used to run an independent campaign on O’Malley’s behalf in early nominating states, its founders said. The political action committee’s name is aimed at sending a specific message: that 52-year-old O’Malley is better suited to represent younger generations than 67-year-old Hillary Rodham Clinton, the Democratic front-runner.
“This is not your grandmother’s super PAC,” Damian O’Doherty, the group’s chief executive, said in an interview Wednesday. He described plans for outreach on the ground and via digital media, as well as collaboration with other like-minded groups — a departure, he said, from the traditional super PAC model of simply raising money to air TV ads.
It is too early to tell what impact the group might have — O’Doherty declined to discuss fundraising goals — but its arrival is further testament to the changed world of campaign financing.
In the wake of the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, super PACs aligned with presidential candidates have become commonplace, particularly on the Republican side. Unlike candidate committees, which limit individual contributions to $2,700, super PACs face no restrictions on how much they can accept from donors.
O’Malley voiced reservations about the use of super PACs during a trip to New Hampshire this month, as he was peppered with questions about reports that Clinton gave her blessing to the efforts of Priorities USA Action, a group supporting her, even as she decried the role of money in politics.
“I would hope that in the Democratic Party that all of our candidates might discourage super PACs from being involved,” O’Malley said. He added that he was wrestling with “how we can put forward a campaign of principle and substance, a campaign that acknowledges what’s wrong with our [financing] system, and yet be able to compete.”
O’Doherty said that he had not spoken with O’Malley’s soon-to-be campaign aides about the establishment of a super PAC, pointing out that he did not “need or expect any blessing from Martin O’Malley.”
An O’Malley spokeswoman did not return a phone call requesting comment.
By law, once candidates declare for office, they cannot coordinate with super PACs supporting them. Candidates can appear at events for super PAC donors, as long as they do not seek large donations themselves.
O’Doherty, 41, the co-founder of a Baltimore-based public affairs firm, is active in Maryland politics and has known O’Malley for decades. He is starting the PAC with Ron Boehmer, 25, who served as O’Malley’s press secretary shortly before the governor left office in January. O’Doherty and Boehmer work in the same firm as Steve Kearney, a former O’Malley communications director. O’Doherty said Kearney has no role in the super PAC.
O’Doherty said that his group eventually wants to support other forward-looking candidates who understand issues, such as college debt, that are burdening the younger generation. But for now, he said, “job one is to advance the Martin O’Malley candidacy as far as possible.”
O’Doherty said that his group had secured office space in the Dupont Circle area of the District and was planning to expand its presence around the country by setting up shop at locations offered by WeWork, a provider of shared office space for entrepreneurs.
Super PAC Scheme
Campaign Finance Watchdogs Call On Justice Department To Investigate Jeb Bush's Super PAC Scheme
Paul Blumenthal
Proponents of campaign finance reform are asking the Department of Justice to appoint an independent special prosecutor to investigate possible violations of campaign finance law by former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush as he seeks the Republican Party's presidential nomination.
The request from Democracy 21 and the Campaign Legal Center, sent to Attorney General Loretta Lynch on Wednesday, alleges that Bush’s creation and operation of the Right to Rise Super PAC are in violation of a section of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (more commonly known as McCain-Feingold after its chief Senate sponsors). The provision in question bans an entity created by a candidate or anyone acting on a candidate's behalf from raising or spending money on an election outside of the base contribution limits -- which currently limit contributions to $5,400 per donor.
“[T]here are powerful grounds to believe that both Bush and the Right to Rise Super PAC are violating these prohibitions and, in so doing, that they are engaged in a scheme to allow unlimited contributions to be spent directly on behalf of the Bush campaign and thereby violate the candidate contribution limits enacted to prevent corruption and the appearance of corruption,” the request states.
Bush announced in December that he would “actively explore the possibility of running for President of the United States.” This hedged proclamation was a carefully crafted legal statement indicating that he was not yet a declared candidate and, thus, could evade campaign finance laws. Bush has since run his not-quite campaign out of his super PAC while collecting seven-figure contributions outside the traditional legal structure of contribution limits.
The groups behind the complaint have already filed complaints with the Federal Election Commission, which oversees campaign finance laws. The decision to move the request to the Department of Justice comes after FEC Chair Ann Ravel told The New York Times that the commission will not be able to adequately enforce the laws on the books.
“[T]he Department of Justice has its own separate responsibility to enforce the campaign finance laws against 'knowing and willful' violations,” the complaint states.
Since Bush announced his intent to maybe run for president, the former governor's team has defended his direct involvement in running the Right to Rise super PAC by noting that he is not yet a candidate. This has continued even after Bush accidentally declared, “I’m running for president in 2016,” before walking it back by saying, “if I run.”
Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, previously explained to The Huffington Post that the law does not leave it up to potential candidates to decide when they are or are not officially in the race.
“Whether he’s a candidate or not does not depend on any formal declaration by him,” Wertheimer said. “As far as we are concerned, he is and has been a candidate for some time. That’s why we filed the complaint and we are looking at further action in relationship with the super PAC that is supporting him and that he was involved in creating.”
This argument is an important starting point for the groups in their call for a Justice Department investigation.
“An individual becomes a 'candidate' if the individual raises 'funds in excess of what could reasonably be expected to be used for exploratory activities or undertakes activities designed to amass campaign funds that would be spent after he or she becomes a candidate,'" the complaint states, quoting from relevant campaign finance law.
The groups argue that an independent special prosecutor should be appointed to investigate the case, since it would be highly sensitive for a Democratic administration to investigate a criminal complaint against a presidential candidate from the opposing party.
“The investigation of a Republican candidate for president by a Justice Department headed by an Attorney General appointed by a Democratic president poses a conflict of interest and an appearance problem. Further, it would be in the public interest to appoint a Special Counsel for this politically sensitive matter in order for the investigation and its conclusions to have credibility with the public,” the complaint reads.
Bush is expected to have raised $100 million for his super PAC by the end of the first reporting period on June 30. The funds will undoubtedly be spent on his presidential campaign, which, as previously noted, he can barely keep from announcing.
The Justice Department has shown a recent willingness to probe this issue. Earlier this year, Tyler Harber became the first person convicted for illegal coordination between a super PAC and a campaign. Harber, who was running Republican Chris Perkins' congressional campaign in Virginia, surreptitiously set up a super PAC to support Perkins while also directing money to himself. He pleaded guilty in February.
Paul Blumenthal
Proponents of campaign finance reform are asking the Department of Justice to appoint an independent special prosecutor to investigate possible violations of campaign finance law by former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush as he seeks the Republican Party's presidential nomination.
The request from Democracy 21 and the Campaign Legal Center, sent to Attorney General Loretta Lynch on Wednesday, alleges that Bush’s creation and operation of the Right to Rise Super PAC are in violation of a section of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (more commonly known as McCain-Feingold after its chief Senate sponsors). The provision in question bans an entity created by a candidate or anyone acting on a candidate's behalf from raising or spending money on an election outside of the base contribution limits -- which currently limit contributions to $5,400 per donor.
“[T]here are powerful grounds to believe that both Bush and the Right to Rise Super PAC are violating these prohibitions and, in so doing, that they are engaged in a scheme to allow unlimited contributions to be spent directly on behalf of the Bush campaign and thereby violate the candidate contribution limits enacted to prevent corruption and the appearance of corruption,” the request states.
Bush announced in December that he would “actively explore the possibility of running for President of the United States.” This hedged proclamation was a carefully crafted legal statement indicating that he was not yet a declared candidate and, thus, could evade campaign finance laws. Bush has since run his not-quite campaign out of his super PAC while collecting seven-figure contributions outside the traditional legal structure of contribution limits.
The groups behind the complaint have already filed complaints with the Federal Election Commission, which oversees campaign finance laws. The decision to move the request to the Department of Justice comes after FEC Chair Ann Ravel told The New York Times that the commission will not be able to adequately enforce the laws on the books.
“[T]he Department of Justice has its own separate responsibility to enforce the campaign finance laws against 'knowing and willful' violations,” the complaint states.
Since Bush announced his intent to maybe run for president, the former governor's team has defended his direct involvement in running the Right to Rise super PAC by noting that he is not yet a candidate. This has continued even after Bush accidentally declared, “I’m running for president in 2016,” before walking it back by saying, “if I run.”
Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, previously explained to The Huffington Post that the law does not leave it up to potential candidates to decide when they are or are not officially in the race.
“Whether he’s a candidate or not does not depend on any formal declaration by him,” Wertheimer said. “As far as we are concerned, he is and has been a candidate for some time. That’s why we filed the complaint and we are looking at further action in relationship with the super PAC that is supporting him and that he was involved in creating.”
This argument is an important starting point for the groups in their call for a Justice Department investigation.
“An individual becomes a 'candidate' if the individual raises 'funds in excess of what could reasonably be expected to be used for exploratory activities or undertakes activities designed to amass campaign funds that would be spent after he or she becomes a candidate,'" the complaint states, quoting from relevant campaign finance law.
The groups argue that an independent special prosecutor should be appointed to investigate the case, since it would be highly sensitive for a Democratic administration to investigate a criminal complaint against a presidential candidate from the opposing party.
“The investigation of a Republican candidate for president by a Justice Department headed by an Attorney General appointed by a Democratic president poses a conflict of interest and an appearance problem. Further, it would be in the public interest to appoint a Special Counsel for this politically sensitive matter in order for the investigation and its conclusions to have credibility with the public,” the complaint reads.
Bush is expected to have raised $100 million for his super PAC by the end of the first reporting period on June 30. The funds will undoubtedly be spent on his presidential campaign, which, as previously noted, he can barely keep from announcing.
The Justice Department has shown a recent willingness to probe this issue. Earlier this year, Tyler Harber became the first person convicted for illegal coordination between a super PAC and a campaign. Harber, who was running Republican Chris Perkins' congressional campaign in Virginia, surreptitiously set up a super PAC to support Perkins while also directing money to himself. He pleaded guilty in February.
Investigate Jeb Bush
Watchdog groups ask DOJ to investigate Jeb Bush and his super PAC
By Stephanie Condon
A pair of public interest groups have asked the Justice Department to investigate whether former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and his super PAC, Right to Rise, are breaking campaign finance laws.
The former governor is clearly already a presidential candidate -- in spite of his attempts to say otherwise, argue the groups Democracy 21 and the Campaign Legal Center. As a candidate, Bush would be legally barred from coordinating with a super PAC like Right to Rise.
However, by delaying his entry into the 2016 race, Bush and Right to Rise "are engaged in a scheme to allow unlimited contributions to be spent directly on behalf of the Bush campaign and thereby violate the candidate contribution limits enacted to prevent corruption and the appearance of corruption," the two groups wrote in a letter to Attorney General Loretta Lynch.
Five ways 2016 candidates are testing campaign finance rules
Democracy 21 and the Campaign Legal Center asked Lynch to appoint an independent Special Counsel to conduct the investigation on behalf of the Justice Department.
The groups are also filing a complaint against Bush and Right to Rise with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) but said in a statement that the dysfunctional FEC "has lost public credibility as an enforcement agency."
The complaint against Bush and Right to Rise is just the first in a series of requests for investigations the two groups plan to make. The 2016 candidates, whether they've officially entered the race or not, have employed several tactics to push the limits of campaign finance rules.
"Jeb Bush is not alone in the presidential field in seeming to thumb his nose at the law,"
Campaign Legal Center executive director J. Gerald Hebert said in a statement, adding that the Justice Department should step in to "keep the White House and Congress off the auction block."
By Stephanie Condon
A pair of public interest groups have asked the Justice Department to investigate whether former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and his super PAC, Right to Rise, are breaking campaign finance laws.
The former governor is clearly already a presidential candidate -- in spite of his attempts to say otherwise, argue the groups Democracy 21 and the Campaign Legal Center. As a candidate, Bush would be legally barred from coordinating with a super PAC like Right to Rise.
However, by delaying his entry into the 2016 race, Bush and Right to Rise "are engaged in a scheme to allow unlimited contributions to be spent directly on behalf of the Bush campaign and thereby violate the candidate contribution limits enacted to prevent corruption and the appearance of corruption," the two groups wrote in a letter to Attorney General Loretta Lynch.
Five ways 2016 candidates are testing campaign finance rules
Democracy 21 and the Campaign Legal Center asked Lynch to appoint an independent Special Counsel to conduct the investigation on behalf of the Justice Department.
The groups are also filing a complaint against Bush and Right to Rise with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) but said in a statement that the dysfunctional FEC "has lost public credibility as an enforcement agency."
The complaint against Bush and Right to Rise is just the first in a series of requests for investigations the two groups plan to make. The 2016 candidates, whether they've officially entered the race or not, have employed several tactics to push the limits of campaign finance rules.
"Jeb Bush is not alone in the presidential field in seeming to thumb his nose at the law,"
Campaign Legal Center executive director J. Gerald Hebert said in a statement, adding that the Justice Department should step in to "keep the White House and Congress off the auction block."
Same side
McCain: Citizens United 'worst Supreme Court decision'
By Joe Dana
Just for the record, there is at least one political debate in which both President Obama and Ariz. Sen. John McCain are on the same side. They both hate the Citizens United decision.
During a banter session with reporters Monday in Cave Creek, McCain mentioned the case during a conversation about the Supreme Court.
"I would still argue that the worst decision the Supreme Court made was Citizens United, which has unleashed this flood of billions of dollars of unaccounted-for money that will sooner or later, that will lead to enough corruption that we will have a reform," McCain said.
McCain's disdain for the decision is not a surprise. The ruling, released in January, 2010, gave corporations and unions the green light to spend unlimited amounts of cash on political ads and other vehicles intended to defeat political candidates. It also led to the creation of super PACs.
The ruling struck sections of Sen. McCain's hard-fought 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance legislation. It also led to a gush of "dark money" spending on congressional and senate elections around the nation, as described in a recent Brennan Center for Justice report.
Locally, questions have surfaced recently over how dark money influenced the 2014 Corporation Commission election, as highlighted by Brahm Resnik of 12 News and columnist Laurie Roberts of the Arizona Republic.
Whether the consequences of Citizens United will eventually lead to "enough corruption" to produce reform, as McCain predicts, is unclear. Even if it happens, I'm assuming the senator and President Obama would choose to celebrate each in his own way, separately.
By Joe Dana
Just for the record, there is at least one political debate in which both President Obama and Ariz. Sen. John McCain are on the same side. They both hate the Citizens United decision.
During a banter session with reporters Monday in Cave Creek, McCain mentioned the case during a conversation about the Supreme Court.
"I would still argue that the worst decision the Supreme Court made was Citizens United, which has unleashed this flood of billions of dollars of unaccounted-for money that will sooner or later, that will lead to enough corruption that we will have a reform," McCain said.
McCain's disdain for the decision is not a surprise. The ruling, released in January, 2010, gave corporations and unions the green light to spend unlimited amounts of cash on political ads and other vehicles intended to defeat political candidates. It also led to the creation of super PACs.
The ruling struck sections of Sen. McCain's hard-fought 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance legislation. It also led to a gush of "dark money" spending on congressional and senate elections around the nation, as described in a recent Brennan Center for Justice report.
Locally, questions have surfaced recently over how dark money influenced the 2014 Corporation Commission election, as highlighted by Brahm Resnik of 12 News and columnist Laurie Roberts of the Arizona Republic.
Whether the consequences of Citizens United will eventually lead to "enough corruption" to produce reform, as McCain predicts, is unclear. Even if it happens, I'm assuming the senator and President Obama would choose to celebrate each in his own way, separately.
Pataki
9 things to know about George Pataki
Former GOP governor of New York hopes to ascend to presidency
By Michael Beckel
What do Franklin Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt, Grover Cleveland, Martin Van Buren and George Pataki all have in common? All men are former New York governors. And if Pataki can convince voters that he’s fit for the White House, all will have also served as president of the United States.
Pataki will formally announce his presidential run today. A Republican who served three terms as New York’s top executive, he first won that office by defeating Democratic incumbent Mario Cuomo during the famed “Republican Revolution” of 1994. An ardent supporter of fighting Islamic terrorists abroad, Pataki led New York’s government during the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
In a crowded GOP presidential field, Pataki also stands out for his environmental stances. In 2005, BusinessWeek praised Pataki for his efforts as governor “to cut gases that cause global warming.”
As president, Pataki says he would reduce the size of government and simplify the tax code. He says he would also institute term limits for Congress and ban former members of Congress from lobbying.
Pataki also considered presidential bids in 2008 and 2012 but didn’t run. Here’s more about the man who hopes that 2016 will finally be his year:
Former GOP governor of New York hopes to ascend to presidency
By Michael Beckel
What do Franklin Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt, Grover Cleveland, Martin Van Buren and George Pataki all have in common? All men are former New York governors. And if Pataki can convince voters that he’s fit for the White House, all will have also served as president of the United States.
Pataki will formally announce his presidential run today. A Republican who served three terms as New York’s top executive, he first won that office by defeating Democratic incumbent Mario Cuomo during the famed “Republican Revolution” of 1994. An ardent supporter of fighting Islamic terrorists abroad, Pataki led New York’s government during the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
In a crowded GOP presidential field, Pataki also stands out for his environmental stances. In 2005, BusinessWeek praised Pataki for his efforts as governor “to cut gases that cause global warming.”
As president, Pataki says he would reduce the size of government and simplify the tax code. He says he would also institute term limits for Congress and ban former members of Congress from lobbying.
Pataki also considered presidential bids in 2008 and 2012 but didn’t run. Here’s more about the man who hopes that 2016 will finally be his year:
- Who is George Pataki? A former three-term GOP governor of New York who's now running for president.
- George Pataki is no stranger to big-money campaigns. He raised about $40 million for his 2002 gubernatorial bid and about $24 million in 1998.
- About $1 of every $7 George Pataki raised during his 2002 gubernatorial bid came from finance, insurance and real estate interests.
- After leaving office, George Pataki founded a business development firm with John Cahill, his former chief of staff.
- The Pataki-Cahill Group advertises that its “strategic relationships will help clients make invaluable introductions.”
- George Pataki has pledged to permanently ban former members of Congress from lobbying if elected president.
- In 2012, George Pataki launched a super PAC focused on New York races that he hoped would raise more than $10 million. It raised $66,000.
- A pro-Pataki group named "We The People, Not Washington" was the first super PAC to officially register with the FEC this year.
- "We The People, Not Washington" has yet to file paperwork identifying its donors. But several New Hampshire politicians are part of its team.
Compete?
Can Santorum Raise Enough Money to Compete?
By Rebecca Ballhaus
As former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum launches his presidential campaign on Wednesday, he will face a pressing question: Can he raise enough money to distinguish himself from the crowded field of Republicans vying for the nomination?
In his last presidential campaign in 2012, Mr. Santorum’s fundraising surged as he won contests in 11 states, including Iowa. But when he dropped out of the race in April 2012, he cited a weak cash flow as one of the reasons for his departure. And in 2016, he may face an even greater fundraising challenge, as he competes for a limited pool of evangelical voters and conservatives with several first-time candidates who are way ahead of him in the polls.
One sign of the challenge ahead: Nick Ryan, the founder of the super PAC backing the former senator in 2012, has this time formed such a group for former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee instead.
On Friday, Mr. Santorum will head to Great Falls, Va., for a fundraiser hosted by venture capitalist John Burke. Guests can pay $2,700 each—the maximum they can donate to a presidential campaign in the primary—to sit at a table with Mr. Santorum, where they are promised a “casual and candid conversation with Rick,” according to a copy of an invitation obtained by the Wall Street Journal. Attending a VIP reception costs $1,000 per person, and a “general reception” is just $500.
Eight couples are on the “host committee” for the event, according to the invitation, which does not specify how much members of that committee must pay to attend. Among the members are Washington, D.C., lawyers William Wichterman and Pat Cipollone, who both gave to Mr. Santorum’s last presidential campaign. Mr. Wichterman also served in George W. Bush’s administration.
How Mr. Santorum’s fundraising efforts fare will be key to determining his success in the crowded field of Republicans running for the nomination. Other candidates who are seeking to carve out a similar niche to the former senator saw their campaign coffers fill quickly after announcing their bids: Texas Sen. Ted Cruz raised about $4 million in the eight days after his announcement; Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul raised $1 million little more than a day after his. Establishment favorite former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, meanwhile, is expected to unveil a record-breaking fundraising haul this summer, and has already held several $100,000-ticket fundraisers.
For his 2012 campaign, Mr. Santorum raised $22.3 million, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. By the time Mr. Santorum exited the race, Mr. Romney had raised $88.7 million. Mr. Santorum also received a hefty share of outside help through a super PAC, the Red, White and Blue Fund, that spent $8.4 million on his behalf. That super PAC was largely bankrolled by Foster Friess, a mutual fund investor who gave more than $2 million to the group. Mr. Friess has said he will back Mr. Santorum again in his second bid, but didn’t respond to questions about how much he would spend.
Prior to Friday’s fundraiser, the former senator had already begun raising money directly for his campaign. Last month, he set up a “testing the waters” account, allowing him to raise funds under the same contribution caps that apply to a presidential campaign. Money raised for that account will be rolled over to his campaign, and he will need to retroactively disclose the names of his donors. Funds raised at Friday’s event will go to the testing the waters account, according to the invitation.
Mr. Santorum also has a political-action committee and a 501(c)4 non-profit—both called Patriot Voices—raising money on his behalf. Those two groups have raised a combined $10 million since June 2012, according to a spokeswoman.
By Rebecca Ballhaus
As former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum launches his presidential campaign on Wednesday, he will face a pressing question: Can he raise enough money to distinguish himself from the crowded field of Republicans vying for the nomination?
In his last presidential campaign in 2012, Mr. Santorum’s fundraising surged as he won contests in 11 states, including Iowa. But when he dropped out of the race in April 2012, he cited a weak cash flow as one of the reasons for his departure. And in 2016, he may face an even greater fundraising challenge, as he competes for a limited pool of evangelical voters and conservatives with several first-time candidates who are way ahead of him in the polls.
One sign of the challenge ahead: Nick Ryan, the founder of the super PAC backing the former senator in 2012, has this time formed such a group for former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee instead.
On Friday, Mr. Santorum will head to Great Falls, Va., for a fundraiser hosted by venture capitalist John Burke. Guests can pay $2,700 each—the maximum they can donate to a presidential campaign in the primary—to sit at a table with Mr. Santorum, where they are promised a “casual and candid conversation with Rick,” according to a copy of an invitation obtained by the Wall Street Journal. Attending a VIP reception costs $1,000 per person, and a “general reception” is just $500.
Eight couples are on the “host committee” for the event, according to the invitation, which does not specify how much members of that committee must pay to attend. Among the members are Washington, D.C., lawyers William Wichterman and Pat Cipollone, who both gave to Mr. Santorum’s last presidential campaign. Mr. Wichterman also served in George W. Bush’s administration.
How Mr. Santorum’s fundraising efforts fare will be key to determining his success in the crowded field of Republicans running for the nomination. Other candidates who are seeking to carve out a similar niche to the former senator saw their campaign coffers fill quickly after announcing their bids: Texas Sen. Ted Cruz raised about $4 million in the eight days after his announcement; Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul raised $1 million little more than a day after his. Establishment favorite former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, meanwhile, is expected to unveil a record-breaking fundraising haul this summer, and has already held several $100,000-ticket fundraisers.
For his 2012 campaign, Mr. Santorum raised $22.3 million, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. By the time Mr. Santorum exited the race, Mr. Romney had raised $88.7 million. Mr. Santorum also received a hefty share of outside help through a super PAC, the Red, White and Blue Fund, that spent $8.4 million on his behalf. That super PAC was largely bankrolled by Foster Friess, a mutual fund investor who gave more than $2 million to the group. Mr. Friess has said he will back Mr. Santorum again in his second bid, but didn’t respond to questions about how much he would spend.
Prior to Friday’s fundraiser, the former senator had already begun raising money directly for his campaign. Last month, he set up a “testing the waters” account, allowing him to raise funds under the same contribution caps that apply to a presidential campaign. Money raised for that account will be rolled over to his campaign, and he will need to retroactively disclose the names of his donors. Funds raised at Friday’s event will go to the testing the waters account, according to the invitation.
Mr. Santorum also has a political-action committee and a 501(c)4 non-profit—both called Patriot Voices—raising money on his behalf. Those two groups have raised a combined $10 million since June 2012, according to a spokeswoman.
Second try Rick (Perry or Santorum?, same thing...)
Rick Santorum Announces New Presidential Bid, and New Focus on Middle Class
By TRIP GABRIEL
Rick Santorum, the runner-up in the Republican nomination race four years ago, announced his second presidential bid on Wednesday, pledging to restore a middle class “hollowed out” by government policies.
A former United States senator from rural western Pennsylvania, he appealed primarily to social conservatives four years ago. But he has donned a new mantle of economic populism, one he calls “blue-collar conservatism.”
“Working families don’t need another president tied to big government or big money,” he said, criticizing Hillary Rodham Clinton and “big business” for pro-immigration policies he said had undercut American workers.
Mr. Santorum, 57, was the surprise winner of the Iowa caucuses in 2012, thanks to evangelical Christian voters, and he went on to win 10 other states, dragging out Mitt Romney’s quest for the nomination.
Still, he has struggled to catch on this time around. He is in danger of not making the 10-candidate cutoff for the first Republican debate on Aug. 6, which will be determined by standings in national polls.
One Santorum supporter, who drove 11 hours from Missouri for the announcement speech on a factory floor here, said he liked Mr. Santorum’s new focus on economics.
“I think it will connect with those of us that have abilities and strengths but end up in menial jobs,” said the supporter, Steve Athens, 63, a men’s wear salesman.
Mr. Santorum, who held up a lump of coal to illustrate his connection to a grandfather who was a miner in Pennsylvania, also emphasized his 12 years in the Senate, and he warned “about the gathering storm of radical Islam.”
He boasted that he was recently declared an enemy in the English-language magazine of the Islamic State. “They know who I am, and I know who they are,” he said.
At times, his unwillingness to emphasize the issues that worked for him in 2012 — opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage — and his decision to criticize his own party for being obsessed with cutting taxes for the rich have made him seem the boldest candidate in the race.
In 2012, Mr. Santorum embodied many conservatives’ dissatisfaction with Mr. Romney, who won the nomination after other conservatives proved to have fatal flaws.
Until days before the Iowa caucuses, Mr. Santorum was an underfinanced outsider, but his dogged campaigning in all 99 of the state’s counties, often before tiny crowds, paid off. His 34-vote margin of victory was not officially announced until two weeks after the caucuses, something Mr. Santorum resents to this day for costing him momentum in later contests.
This time around, many of his senior aides and supporters have defected to other candidates.
“I worked for Santorum last time,” Cody Hoefert, the co-chairman of the Republican Party of Iowa, said with a tone of befuddlement. “The guy wins more states than anyone but Romney, and he’s polling at 1 percent.”
One reason for Mr. Santorum’s struggle this year is that in a field shaping up to include a dozen or more Republican contenders, including sitting governors and senators, he has not held office since 2007 and looks to many voters like someone who has already had his shot.
It is a reversal from the days when Republicans deferred to the “next-in-line” candidate, often from the party’s establishment. The grass-roots voters — evangelicals, Tea Party loyalists, libertarians — whom Mr. Santorum benefited from four years ago pay him little deference today.
Addressing 1,000 evangelicals in Iowa last month — at a forum where Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin read from a Christian devotional and Senator Ted Cruz of Texas called on believers to fall to their knees in prayer to stop the Supreme Court from legalizing same-sex marriage — Mr. Santorum called for an increase in the minimum wage, and for Republicans to reach out to the majority of Americans without a college degree.
He criticized his party for being stuck “with a 35-year-old message on the economy,” namely cutting taxes for the rich.
It is a message that has yet to gain much traction with the party’s base. But Mr. Santorum’s interest in economic populism is genuine, said John Brabender, his top strategist.
“He does feel very, very passionate about this whole idea we have to become the voice of working families,” Mr. Brabender said.
The backdrop for Mr. Santorum’s announcement speech reflected the blend of new and old issues: Penn United Technologies in Cabot, a plant that manufactures equipment for the oil and gas industries, and in which employees have an ownership stake. It was founded as a “Christian company” and states on its website that “we exist to glorify God.”
Mr. Santorum grew up nearby, in Butler County, north of Pittsburgh.
One supporter present was Foster Friess, a wealthy investor whose multimillion-dollar donations in 2012 helped Mr. Santorum remain in the race long after he might have quit.
Mr. Friess, in a black cowboy hat, said he would support Mr. Santorum again, but not through a “super PAC,” which reports donors.
“The money I give will be hard to track,” said Mr. Friess, adding that he had spent $26,000 for a private jet to the rally.
By TRIP GABRIEL
Rick Santorum, the runner-up in the Republican nomination race four years ago, announced his second presidential bid on Wednesday, pledging to restore a middle class “hollowed out” by government policies.
A former United States senator from rural western Pennsylvania, he appealed primarily to social conservatives four years ago. But he has donned a new mantle of economic populism, one he calls “blue-collar conservatism.”
“Working families don’t need another president tied to big government or big money,” he said, criticizing Hillary Rodham Clinton and “big business” for pro-immigration policies he said had undercut American workers.
Mr. Santorum, 57, was the surprise winner of the Iowa caucuses in 2012, thanks to evangelical Christian voters, and he went on to win 10 other states, dragging out Mitt Romney’s quest for the nomination.
Still, he has struggled to catch on this time around. He is in danger of not making the 10-candidate cutoff for the first Republican debate on Aug. 6, which will be determined by standings in national polls.
One Santorum supporter, who drove 11 hours from Missouri for the announcement speech on a factory floor here, said he liked Mr. Santorum’s new focus on economics.
“I think it will connect with those of us that have abilities and strengths but end up in menial jobs,” said the supporter, Steve Athens, 63, a men’s wear salesman.
Mr. Santorum, who held up a lump of coal to illustrate his connection to a grandfather who was a miner in Pennsylvania, also emphasized his 12 years in the Senate, and he warned “about the gathering storm of radical Islam.”
He boasted that he was recently declared an enemy in the English-language magazine of the Islamic State. “They know who I am, and I know who they are,” he said.
At times, his unwillingness to emphasize the issues that worked for him in 2012 — opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage — and his decision to criticize his own party for being obsessed with cutting taxes for the rich have made him seem the boldest candidate in the race.
In 2012, Mr. Santorum embodied many conservatives’ dissatisfaction with Mr. Romney, who won the nomination after other conservatives proved to have fatal flaws.
Until days before the Iowa caucuses, Mr. Santorum was an underfinanced outsider, but his dogged campaigning in all 99 of the state’s counties, often before tiny crowds, paid off. His 34-vote margin of victory was not officially announced until two weeks after the caucuses, something Mr. Santorum resents to this day for costing him momentum in later contests.
This time around, many of his senior aides and supporters have defected to other candidates.
“I worked for Santorum last time,” Cody Hoefert, the co-chairman of the Republican Party of Iowa, said with a tone of befuddlement. “The guy wins more states than anyone but Romney, and he’s polling at 1 percent.”
One reason for Mr. Santorum’s struggle this year is that in a field shaping up to include a dozen or more Republican contenders, including sitting governors and senators, he has not held office since 2007 and looks to many voters like someone who has already had his shot.
It is a reversal from the days when Republicans deferred to the “next-in-line” candidate, often from the party’s establishment. The grass-roots voters — evangelicals, Tea Party loyalists, libertarians — whom Mr. Santorum benefited from four years ago pay him little deference today.
Addressing 1,000 evangelicals in Iowa last month — at a forum where Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin read from a Christian devotional and Senator Ted Cruz of Texas called on believers to fall to their knees in prayer to stop the Supreme Court from legalizing same-sex marriage — Mr. Santorum called for an increase in the minimum wage, and for Republicans to reach out to the majority of Americans without a college degree.
He criticized his party for being stuck “with a 35-year-old message on the economy,” namely cutting taxes for the rich.
It is a message that has yet to gain much traction with the party’s base. But Mr. Santorum’s interest in economic populism is genuine, said John Brabender, his top strategist.
“He does feel very, very passionate about this whole idea we have to become the voice of working families,” Mr. Brabender said.
The backdrop for Mr. Santorum’s announcement speech reflected the blend of new and old issues: Penn United Technologies in Cabot, a plant that manufactures equipment for the oil and gas industries, and in which employees have an ownership stake. It was founded as a “Christian company” and states on its website that “we exist to glorify God.”
Mr. Santorum grew up nearby, in Butler County, north of Pittsburgh.
One supporter present was Foster Friess, a wealthy investor whose multimillion-dollar donations in 2012 helped Mr. Santorum remain in the race long after he might have quit.
Mr. Friess, in a black cowboy hat, said he would support Mr. Santorum again, but not through a “super PAC,” which reports donors.
“The money I give will be hard to track,” said Mr. Friess, adding that he had spent $26,000 for a private jet to the rally.
VOR Standings
Light winds and tight knit racing meant an amazingly close finish in Lisbon, as Leg 7 of the Volvo Ocean Race came to a close.
One of the most exciting leg finishes so far, where Team Brunel took the leg in the end, and only a minute separated Team Alvimedica in 3rd from Dongfeng Race Team finishing 4th.
# 1 ADOR 16
# 2 Dongfeng 21
# 3 Brunel 22
# 4 Mapfre 26
# 5 Alvi 27
# 6 SCA 41
# 7 Vestas 52
One of the most exciting leg finishes so far, where Team Brunel took the leg in the end, and only a minute separated Team Alvimedica in 3rd from Dongfeng Race Team finishing 4th.
# 1 ADOR 16
# 2 Dongfeng 21
# 3 Brunel 22
# 4 Mapfre 26
# 5 Alvi 27
# 6 SCA 41
# 7 Vestas 52
Commercial Crew
Commercial Crew Milestones Met; Partners on Track for Missions in 2017
NASA has taken another step toward returning America’s ability to launch crew missions to the International Space Station from the United States in 2017.The Commercial Crew Program ordered its first crew rotation mission from The Boeing Company. SpaceX, which successfully performed a pad abort test of its flight vehicle earlier this month, is expected to receive its first order later this year. Determination of which company will fly its mission to the station first will be made at a later time. The contract calls for the orders to take place prior to certification to support the lead time necessary for the first mission in late 2017, provided the contractors meet certain readiness conditions.
Missions flown to the station on Boeing’s Crew Space Transportation (CST)-100 and SpaceX’s Crew Dragon spacecraft will restore America’s human spaceflight capabilities and increase the amount of scientific research that can be conducted aboard the orbiting laboratory.
"Final development and certification are top priority for NASA and our commercial providers, but having an eye on the future is equally important to the commercial crew and station programs," said Kathy Lueders, manager of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program. "Our strategy will result in safe, reliable and cost-effective crew missions."
Boeing’s crew transportation system, including the CST-100 spacecraft, has advanced through various commercial crew development and certification phases. The company recently completed the fourth milestone in the Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap) phase of the program, the delta integrated critical design review. This milestone demonstrates the transportation system has reached design maturity appropriate to proceed with assembly, integration and test activities.
"We’re on track to fly in 2017, and this critical milestone moves us another step closer in fully maturing the CST-100 design," said John Mulholland, Boeing’s vice president of Commercial Programs. "Our integrated and measured approach to spacecraft design ensures quality performance, technical excellence and early risk mitigation."
Orders under the CCtCap contracts are made two to three years prior to the missions to provide time for each company to manufacture and assemble the launch vehicle and spacecraft. In addition, each company must successfully complete the certification process before NASA will give the final approval for flight. If NASA does not receive the full requested funding for CCtCap in fiscal year 2016 and beyond, NASA will have to delay future milestones for both partners proportionally and extend sole reliance on Russia for crew access to the station.
A standard mission to the station will carry four NASA or NASA-sponsored crew members and about 220 pounds of pressurized cargo. The spacecraft will remain at the station for up to 210 days and serve as an emergency lifeboat during that time. Each contract includes a minimum of two and a maximum potential of six missions.
“Commercial Crew launches are critical to the International Space Station Program because it ensures multiple ways of getting crews to orbit,” said Julie Robinson, International Space Station chief scientist. “It also will give us crew return capability so we can increase the crew to seven, letting us complete a backlog of hands-on critical research that has been building up due to heavy demand for the National Laboratory.”
NASA’s Commercial Crew Program manages the CCtCap contracts and is working with each company to ensure commercial transportation system designs and post-certification missions will meet the agency’s safety requirements. Activities that follow the award of missions include a series of mission-related reviews and approvals leading to launch. The program also will be involved in all operational phases of missions to ensure crew safety.
Corporate/investor rights agreement
Stop Calling the TPP a Trade Agreement – It Isn’t.
by Dave Johnson
This is a message to activists trying to fight the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Stop calling the TPP a “trade” agreement. TPP is a corporate/investor rights agreement, not a trade agreement. Trade is a good thing; TPP is not. Every time you use the word trade in association with the TPP, you are helping the other side.
Trade is a propaganda word. It short-circuits thinking. People hear trade and the brain stops working. People think, “Of course, trade is good.” And that ends the discussion.
Calling TPP a trade agreement lets the pro-TPP people argue that TPP is about trade instead of what it is really about. It diverts attention from the real problem. It enables advocates to say things like, “95 percent of the world lives outside the US” as if that has anything to do with TPP. It lets them say, “We know that exports support American jobs” to sell a corporate rights agreement. It enables them to say nonsense like this about a corporate rights agreement designed to send American jobs to Vietnam so a few “investors” can pocket the wage difference: “Exports of US goods and services supported an estimated 9.8 million American jobs, including 25 percent of all manufacturing jobs … and those export-supported jobs pay 13 to 18 percent higher than the national average wage.”
Trade is good. Opening up the border so you can get bananas and they can get fertilizer is trade because they have a climate that lets them grow bananas and you already have a fertilizer plant. Enabling companies to move $30/hour jobs to countries with $.60/hour wages so a few billionaires can pocket the difference is not trade.
Calling TPP a trade agreement lets TPP supporters say people opposed to TPP are “anti-trade.”
TPP Is a Corporate/Investor Rights Agreement
TPP is a corporate/investor rights agreement, and that is the problem.
TPP extends patents, copyrights and other monopolies so investors can collect “rents.”
TPP elevates corporations and corporate profits to and above the level of governments. TPP lets corporations sue governments for laws and regulations that cause them to be less profitable. Enabling tobacco companies to sue governments because anti-smoking campaigns limit profits has nothing to do with trade. Enabling corporations to sue states that try to regulate fracking has nothing to do with trade.
While giving corporations a special channel to sue governments, labor, environmental, consumer and other “stakeholder” organizations do not get a channel for enforcement. This helps enable corporations to break unions, force wages down and pollute without cost. This increases the power of corporations over governments – and us.
Who Says?
Paul Krugman, “This Is Not A Trade Agreement”:
One thing that should be totally obvious, however, is that it’s off-point and insulting to offer an off-the-shelf lecture on how trade is good because of comparative advantage, and protectionists are dumb. For this is not a trade agreement. It’s about intellectual property and dispute settlement; the big beneficiaries are likely to be pharmaceutical companies and firms that want to sue governments.
Josh Bivens at the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), in “No, the TPP Won’t Be Good for the Middle Class”:
…TPP (like nearly all trade agreements the US signs) is not a ‘free trade agreement’ — instead it’s a treaty that will specify just who will be protected from international competition and who will not. And the strongest and most comprehensive protections offered are by far those for US corporate interests. Finally, there are international economic agreements that the United States could be negotiating to help the American middle class. They would look nothing like the TPP.
Jim Hightower, “The Trans-Pacific Partnership is not about free trade. It’s a corporate coup d’etat – against us!”:
TPP is a ‘trade deal’ that mostly does not deal with trade. In fact, of the 29 chapters in this document, only five cover traditional trade matters!
The other two dozen chapters amount to a devilish ‘partnership’ for corporate protectionism. They create sweeping new ‘rights’ and escape hatches to protect multinational corporations from accountability to our governments… and to us.
On OurFuture.org, “Economist Jeffrey Sachs Says NO to the TPP and the TAFTA Trade Treaties”:
Without touching on the unpopular Fast-Track mechanism necessary to pass these two treaties, Sachs laid out five reasons why, on the substance, they should not be passed or ratified:
1. They are not trade treaties, but agreements aimed at protecting investors.
Josh Barro, “But What Does the Trade Deal Mean if You’re Not a Cheesemaker?”:
Much of the controversy is because the TPP isn’t really (just) a trade agreement. (There’s a reason I called it an ‘economic agreement’ at the top.) A lot of it is about labor, environmental standards, intellectual property and access to markets for services like banking and accounting. And in contrast with the tariff cuts, there’s a lot more reason to worry that some of the agreement’s non-trade provisions would hurt the world economy even as they benefited specific industries.
Techdirt, “If You Really Think TPP Is About ‘Trade’ Then Your Analysis Is Already Wrong”:
Instead, trade agreements have become a sort of secret playground for big corporations to abuse the process and force favorable regulations to be put in place around the globe.
… If you make the facile assumption that the TPP is actually about free trade, then you might be confused about all the hubbub about it. If you actually take the time to understand that much of what’s in there has nothing to do with free trade and, in fact, may be the opposite of free trade, you realize why there’s so much concern.
Timothy B. Lee at Vox, “The Trans-Pacific Partnership is great for elites. Is it good for anyone else?”:
In the past, debates about trade deals have mostly been about trade. … In contrast, debates over the TPP mostly haven’t focused on its trade provisions.
[. . .] As the opportunities for trade liberalization have dwindled, the nature of trade agreements has shifted. They’re no longer just about removing barriers to trade. They’ve become a mechanism for setting global economic rules more generally.
… We expect the laws that govern our economic lives will be made in a transparent, representative, and accountable fashion. The TPP negotiation process is none of these — it’s secretive, it’s dominated by powerful insiders, and it provides little opportunity for public input.
Former IMF chief economist [Simon Johnson] on the problems with TPP:
The Trans Pacific Partnership is a notorious, secretly negotiated trade deal; from leaks we know that it continues ‘Investor State Resolution’ clauses that allow foreign companies to sue to overturn national labor and environmental laws. Johnson’s analysis stresses that trade agreements can be good for countries, but they aren’t necessarily good — and when they’re negotiated in secret, they rarely go well.
Stop calling TPP a trade agreement. It is a corporate/investor rights agreement.
by Dave Johnson
This is a message to activists trying to fight the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Stop calling the TPP a “trade” agreement. TPP is a corporate/investor rights agreement, not a trade agreement. Trade is a good thing; TPP is not. Every time you use the word trade in association with the TPP, you are helping the other side.
Trade is a propaganda word. It short-circuits thinking. People hear trade and the brain stops working. People think, “Of course, trade is good.” And that ends the discussion.
Calling TPP a trade agreement lets the pro-TPP people argue that TPP is about trade instead of what it is really about. It diverts attention from the real problem. It enables advocates to say things like, “95 percent of the world lives outside the US” as if that has anything to do with TPP. It lets them say, “We know that exports support American jobs” to sell a corporate rights agreement. It enables them to say nonsense like this about a corporate rights agreement designed to send American jobs to Vietnam so a few “investors” can pocket the wage difference: “Exports of US goods and services supported an estimated 9.8 million American jobs, including 25 percent of all manufacturing jobs … and those export-supported jobs pay 13 to 18 percent higher than the national average wage.”
Trade is good. Opening up the border so you can get bananas and they can get fertilizer is trade because they have a climate that lets them grow bananas and you already have a fertilizer plant. Enabling companies to move $30/hour jobs to countries with $.60/hour wages so a few billionaires can pocket the difference is not trade.
Calling TPP a trade agreement lets TPP supporters say people opposed to TPP are “anti-trade.”
TPP Is a Corporate/Investor Rights Agreement
TPP is a corporate/investor rights agreement, and that is the problem.
TPP extends patents, copyrights and other monopolies so investors can collect “rents.”
TPP elevates corporations and corporate profits to and above the level of governments. TPP lets corporations sue governments for laws and regulations that cause them to be less profitable. Enabling tobacco companies to sue governments because anti-smoking campaigns limit profits has nothing to do with trade. Enabling corporations to sue states that try to regulate fracking has nothing to do with trade.
While giving corporations a special channel to sue governments, labor, environmental, consumer and other “stakeholder” organizations do not get a channel for enforcement. This helps enable corporations to break unions, force wages down and pollute without cost. This increases the power of corporations over governments – and us.
Who Says?
Paul Krugman, “This Is Not A Trade Agreement”:
One thing that should be totally obvious, however, is that it’s off-point and insulting to offer an off-the-shelf lecture on how trade is good because of comparative advantage, and protectionists are dumb. For this is not a trade agreement. It’s about intellectual property and dispute settlement; the big beneficiaries are likely to be pharmaceutical companies and firms that want to sue governments.
Josh Bivens at the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), in “No, the TPP Won’t Be Good for the Middle Class”:
…TPP (like nearly all trade agreements the US signs) is not a ‘free trade agreement’ — instead it’s a treaty that will specify just who will be protected from international competition and who will not. And the strongest and most comprehensive protections offered are by far those for US corporate interests. Finally, there are international economic agreements that the United States could be negotiating to help the American middle class. They would look nothing like the TPP.
Jim Hightower, “The Trans-Pacific Partnership is not about free trade. It’s a corporate coup d’etat – against us!”:
TPP is a ‘trade deal’ that mostly does not deal with trade. In fact, of the 29 chapters in this document, only five cover traditional trade matters!
The other two dozen chapters amount to a devilish ‘partnership’ for corporate protectionism. They create sweeping new ‘rights’ and escape hatches to protect multinational corporations from accountability to our governments… and to us.
On OurFuture.org, “Economist Jeffrey Sachs Says NO to the TPP and the TAFTA Trade Treaties”:
Without touching on the unpopular Fast-Track mechanism necessary to pass these two treaties, Sachs laid out five reasons why, on the substance, they should not be passed or ratified:
1. They are not trade treaties, but agreements aimed at protecting investors.
Josh Barro, “But What Does the Trade Deal Mean if You’re Not a Cheesemaker?”:
Much of the controversy is because the TPP isn’t really (just) a trade agreement. (There’s a reason I called it an ‘economic agreement’ at the top.) A lot of it is about labor, environmental standards, intellectual property and access to markets for services like banking and accounting. And in contrast with the tariff cuts, there’s a lot more reason to worry that some of the agreement’s non-trade provisions would hurt the world economy even as they benefited specific industries.
Techdirt, “If You Really Think TPP Is About ‘Trade’ Then Your Analysis Is Already Wrong”:
Instead, trade agreements have become a sort of secret playground for big corporations to abuse the process and force favorable regulations to be put in place around the globe.
… If you make the facile assumption that the TPP is actually about free trade, then you might be confused about all the hubbub about it. If you actually take the time to understand that much of what’s in there has nothing to do with free trade and, in fact, may be the opposite of free trade, you realize why there’s so much concern.
Timothy B. Lee at Vox, “The Trans-Pacific Partnership is great for elites. Is it good for anyone else?”:
In the past, debates about trade deals have mostly been about trade. … In contrast, debates over the TPP mostly haven’t focused on its trade provisions.
[. . .] As the opportunities for trade liberalization have dwindled, the nature of trade agreements has shifted. They’re no longer just about removing barriers to trade. They’ve become a mechanism for setting global economic rules more generally.
… We expect the laws that govern our economic lives will be made in a transparent, representative, and accountable fashion. The TPP negotiation process is none of these — it’s secretive, it’s dominated by powerful insiders, and it provides little opportunity for public input.
Former IMF chief economist [Simon Johnson] on the problems with TPP:
The Trans Pacific Partnership is a notorious, secretly negotiated trade deal; from leaks we know that it continues ‘Investor State Resolution’ clauses that allow foreign companies to sue to overturn national labor and environmental laws. Johnson’s analysis stresses that trade agreements can be good for countries, but they aren’t necessarily good — and when they’re negotiated in secret, they rarely go well.
Stop calling TPP a trade agreement. It is a corporate/investor rights agreement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)