Tag Archives: democrats

A Second Look at BernieCare

by ReganBobb049309 Posted on January 18, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Last night I wrote that Bernie Sanders’ universal health care plan was “pretty good.” Over at Vox, Ezra Klein says it’s vague and unrealistic. Who’s right?

Both of us, I’d say. The Sanders plan is mostly a sketch of how he’d fund universal health care, and at that level I’d say it was pretty good if you evaluate it as a campaign document rather than a Brookings white paper. His numbers mostly added up, and from my point of view, his funding sources were roughly appropriate. Half or more of the funding comes from the middle class, with the rest coming from the rich. I’m OK with that.

But how about the actual mechanics of providing health care? Klein is pretty scathing about Sanders’ promise that his plan will cover everything with no copays or deductibles:

The implication to most people, I think, is that claim denials will be a thing of the past….What makes that so irresponsible is that it stands in flagrant contradiction to the way single-payer plans actually work….The real way single-payer systems save money isn’t through cutting administrative costs. It’s through cutting reimbursements to doctors, hospitals, drug companies, and device companies.

….But to get those savings, the government needs to be willing to say no when doctors, hospitals, drug companies, and device companies refuse to meet their prices, and that means the government needs to be willing to say no to people who want those treatments. If the government can’t do that — if Sanders is going to stick to the spirit of “no more fighting with insurance companies when they fail to pay for charges” — then it won’t be able to control costs.

The issue of how often the government says no leads to all sorts of other key questions — questions Sanders is silent on. For instance, who decides when the government says no? Will there be a cost-effectiveness council, like Britain’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence? Or will the government basically have to cover every treatment that can be proven beneficial, as is true for Medicare now? What will the appeals process be like?

This might sound technical, but it’s absolutely critical.

Klein is right that the mechanics of the plan are critical, and I probably should have done more than shrug that off as something that we’d get to later. Still, I think his criticism goes way too far. This is a campaign document. It’s obviously aspirational, and asking a presidential candidate to go into deep detail about the drawbacks of his policy is a little much. I can’t recall ever seeing that in my life. In a campaign, you sell the high points and then let critics take their shots.

That’s not to say that Sanders couldn’t have done more than he did. He could have and probably should have. In particular, he should have provided at least an outline of how his plan would work: who it covers, who employs doctors, what drives the cost savings, and so forth.

But my take is that Sanders was trying to accomplish something specific: he wanted to show that universal health care was affordable, and he wanted to stake out a position that Democrats should at least be dedicated to the idea of universal health care. I’d say he accomplished that in credible style. It’s fine to hold Sanders to a high standard, but it’s unfair to hold him to an Olympian standard that no presidential candidate in history has ever met. We health care wonks may be disappointed not to have more to chew on, but that’s life. We’ll get it eventually.

More:

A Second Look at BernieCare

Posted in Brita, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, oven, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on A Second Look at BernieCare

Gun Safety, Climate Change Are Top Priorities for Millennials in 2016

by ClintChinnery Posted on January 15, 2016

A new poll commissioned by USA Today and Rock the Vote has given some insight into millennials top concerns for the 2016 election season. The survey was given to 1,141 young adults aged 18 to 34, and asked participants to identify their political leanings, social and economic policy preferences, and priorities for the country. As it turns out, millennials are less likely than previous generations to be affiliated with a particular political party. Their priorities include climate change action, gun safety laws and the economy (presidential candidates, take note.)

Millennials political leanings

Young Americans are less staunch on partisan issues than their parents or grandparents, and USA Today notes that the under-35 crowd is less ideological than previous generations. Even conservative millennials tend to lean left (42 percent) on social issues, while the majority of young adults (38 percent) identify as economically conservative.

Despite being collectively liberal on social issues and conservative on fiscal ones, young adults do seem to havepartisansympathies. Forty-one percent of millennials identify as Democrat, while just 28 percent consider themselves Republican.

Favored presidential candidates

Its no secret that political outliers have shaken things up in the race to the White House, and millennials voting preferences are case in point. The majority of young Democrats are Feeling the Bern for Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, while most young Republicans support business mogul Donald Trump.

Top national priorities

So what do millennials want for their country? Overwhelmingly (and across partisan lines), they demand action on gun safety and climate change. About 82 percent of young voters want to enforce mandatory background checks for all gun purchases, and 80 percent would like the country to transition to a green energy landscapeby the year 2030. Other popular issues include requiring police officers to wear body cameras (with 76 percent support), prison sentencing reform for perpetrators of non-violent crimes (68 percent) and pathways to immigration for refugees (53 percent).

Millennials: Less partisan, more demanding of action, less likely to vote

What do the results of the survey tell us about millennial voting patterns? Whether due to more open minds or a lack ofknowledgeonpoliticalideologies, young Americans care less about typical partisan agendas and more about middle-of-the-road policies. They are socially tolerant, yet economically conservativelikely due to the impending threats of student and national debt.

Unfortunately, though, theyre also not very likely to vote. Fifty-five percent of millennials asserted that there are better ways to make a difference than to vote, and as few as four in 10 millennials plan to vote in the presidential primaries. Well have to see how young voters priorities and affiliations will play out in November.

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

Continue reading: 

Gun Safety, Climate Change Are Top Priorities for Millennials in 2016

Posted in alo, FF, GE, green energy, LAI, LG, ONA, organic, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Gun Safety, Climate Change Are Top Priorities for Millennials in 2016

Marco Rubio Turns His Back on Puerto Rico, at His Own Peril

by Tabatha0432 Posted on January 14, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

In early September, Hillary Clinton and Marco Rubio campaigned in San Juan, the Puerto Rican capital, on the same day—a nod to the island’s importance in the November presidential election, thanks to a surging population of Puerto Ricans in Florida, the mother of all swing states. But the two candidates came bearing very different visions for how the island territory should cope with its severe debt crisis. At a roundtable event, Clinton backed bankruptcy reforms that would spare the island from the worst ravages of austerity at the cost of profits for its Wall Street creditors. “You can’t fix your economy through austerity,” she said. At his own rally across the city, Rubio took Wall Street’s side. The Associated Press reported that Rubio, speaking in Spanish, “railed against giving Puerto Rico bankruptcy protection.”

Rubio wasn’t always a vocal opponent of bankruptcy protections for Puerto Rico. And his current stance is one that, should he become the Republican nominee, would be hard to explain to the hundreds of thousands of Puerto Rican voters in Florida.

Puerto Rico is currently embroiled in dire financial troubles. The island is $72 billion in debt. In August, Puerto Rico began missing payments to its lenders. Last week, it defaulted on $174 million in payments to creditors. Meanwhile, the island’s economy is floundering, with unemployment at 12 percent. The governor, Democrat Alejandro García Padilla, has repeatedly requested that Congress grant cities and public utilities in Puerto Rico access to Chapter 9 bankruptcy, which would give them the same tools to restructure debt that are available in the 50 states.

Like residents of the District of Columbia, Puerto Ricans lack full congressional representation. The island’s lone representative in Congress is Pedro Pierluisi, who is not allowed a vote on the final passage of legislation even though, as he likes to point out, he represents more people than any other member of the House of Representatives. Since the island doesn’t send anyone to the Senate, Pierluisi has to court friends on the other side of the Capitol to push for Puerto Rico’s interests. “My natural allies in the Senate are the senators who have a significant Puerto Rican presence in their states,” Pierluisi says, ticking off New York’s Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand and Florida’s Bill Nelson and Rubio as his usual Senate partners.

Typically, Rubio has backed Pierluisi’s proposals, he says. In 2013, for example, Rubio introduced in the Senate Pierluisi’s bill to allow Puerto Rico to receive funds to implement electronic medical records.

But that alliance crumbled when Pierluisi asked for help with the island’s debt crisis. “He has supported us on other areas,” Pierluisi says of Rubio. “But not on Chapter 9.”

Democrats approached Rubio’s office earlier this year about co-sponsoring a Chapter 9 bill in the Senate, and they were initially hopeful that he’d sign on when his office didn’t offer any policy objections, according to a Democratic aide in the Senate. But as the process dragged on, Rubio backed away without offering any alternatives or trying to find a compromise. “They ultimately didn’t have substantive issues with what we were talking about but couldn’t commit,” the aide said.

Last month, the New York Times detailed how Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut had initially tried to woo Rubio to join the Democrats’ bill, only for Rubio to back away just three weeks after a fundraiser with a hedge fund founder who had a stake in Puerto Rico’s debt. In November, Fusion reported that six hedge fund executives who hold Puerto Rican debt have donated to Rubio’s presidential campaign.

While perhaps good for his presidential fundraising, Rubio’s decision to back away from bankruptcy protections for the island could haunt him. The same economic turmoil that created the conflict between the island’s government and Wall Street has also spurred the biggest migration of Puerto Ricans to the US mainland since the 1950s and 1960s. Back then, Puerto Ricans headed mainly for New York and New Jersey. This time, about a third of Puerto Ricans coming to the mainland are landing in Florida, an important swing state in this year’s presidential race.

Today, there are more Puerto Ricans living on the US mainland (5.1 million) than in Puerto Rico (3.5 million). As the US economy rebounded from the Great Recession but the island’s economy remained stagnant, migration to the mainland accelerated. Today, there are about 1 million Puerto Ricans in Florida—likely at least 100,000 more than in 2012, although exact figures are hard to come by. That increase is greater than President Barack Obama’s 73,000-vote margin of victory in Florida in 2012.

The Puerto Rican vote in Florida is mostly Democratic, although there are opportunities for Republicans to make inroads into the community. Obama won 77 percent of the Puerto Rican vote in Florida in 2008 and 84 percent in 2012. But it wasn’t too long ago that Jeb Bush won the backing of a majority of Puerto Ricans in his 2002 gubernatorial race, by diligently courting their votes. (Bush, incidentally, supports both Puerto Rican statehood and bankruptcy protections.) In 2010, Rubio significantly outperformed both John McCain’s 2008 campaign and Mitt Romney’s 2012 campaign among Puerto Rican voters. If he is the nominee in November, Rubio will have a built-in advantage with Puerto Ricans due to “the Hispanic heritage he brings, the ability to speak the language, and the fact that he’s from Florida,” says Fernand Amandi, a Democratic pollster in Florida.

The newest arrivals from Puerto Rico represent an even bigger opportunity for Republicans. Unlike those who have lived in Florida for years and have forged a connection with the Democratic Party, newcomers don’t strongly identify with either party. (On the island, political divisions are centered on disagreements over Puerto Rico’s status as a territory rather than the left-right breakdown that defines the parties on the mainland.) What they do feel is a connection to the island, its economic distress, and the livelihoods of their family members who remain there.

“In Puerto Rico they can’t vote, but we can here,” says Betsy Franceschini, a Hispanic outreach director in Florida for the Puerto Rico Federal Affairs Administration, an arm of the island government that works as a liaison to the federal and state governments. “We want to make sure that whatever candidate we support will stand by our community and stand by during this crisis.”

“We will not forget,” Franceschini adds, “especially in November.”

Maurice Ferré, a former Democratic mayor of Miami who was born in Puerto Rico, believes that US policy toward the island will be more important in the 2016 elections than ever before. “Everyone has family in Puerto Rico, and they’re all being affected by this,” he says. “Pensions are now in doubt, health services are now in question…They’re cutting the police, they’re cutting education.”

Thanks to Florida’s presence among the handful of key swing states that candidates will have to jockey over this fall, small issues like this can take on an outsize importance—even deciding the outcome of the election.

“When you have a state as close as Florida potentially could be, and a lot of people anticipate to be, every segment of the electorate has an overmagnified sense of importance,” says Amandi, the pollster. “If anything, the newer arrivals from Puerto Rico that don’t have as much of a cultural history with either of the two parties here, you might say, are more important because they are potentially up for grabs. And some of these single issues, especially as it relates to the island, could very well be a litmus test issue.” Amandi estimates these recent arrivals in Florida, from the latest migration wave over the past decade, could number around 200,000.

So do the math: In Florida, that means potentially as many as 200,000 up-for-grab voters in a state that could, in a close election, be decided by a few thousand votes.

“The Republicans cannot afford to ignore the Puerto Rican electorate because if they do, they will lose Florida,” says Amandi, noting that the GOP nominee doesn’t need to win a majority of Puerto Ricans, but rather needs to surpass McCain and Romney’s poor showings—as Rubio did in 2010. This time around, Amandi says, Rubio is “going to have to explain to Puerto Rican voters why he is against bankruptcy protections.”

Puerto Rican leaders are already showing their anger at Rubio’s decision to back away from bankruptcy. During a December trip to Washington to lobby for bankruptcy protection, the island’s governor warned that Puerto Ricans in Florida would remember Rubio’s decision not to support bankruptcy come November. “They will be here on Election Day,” he said.

Excerpt from – 

Marco Rubio Turns His Back on Puerto Rico, at His Own Peril

Posted in Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Marco Rubio Turns His Back on Puerto Rico, at His Own Peril

Chelsea Clinton Accuses Sanders of Trying to "Dismantle Obamacare"

by Aaleyah William Posted on January 12, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Chelsea Clinton hit the trail for the first time this election cycle on Tuesday to campaign for her mother, and she came out swinging.

In New Hampshire, the younger Clinton attacked Bernie Sanders’ Medicare-for-all, or single-payer, health care plan by wondering if it would in fact take away coverage from millions.

“Sen. Sanders wants to dismantle Obamacare, dismantle the CHIP program, dismantle Medicare, and dismantle private insurance,” she said, according to MSNBC. “I worry if we give Republicans Democratic permission to do that, we’ll go back to an era—before we had the Affordable Care Act—that would strip millions and millions and millions of people off their health insurance.”

Chelsea Clinton is technically right: Millions of Americans would lose their current health insurance plans, which would be replaced by enrollment in a coverage program available to all (except, perhaps, undocumented immigrants). But it’s unclear how a plan that would make almost everyone eligible for coverage would strip millions of health care coverage, which is what Clinton seemed to be saying. (The Clinton campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.)

Sanders’ health care plan, which he outlined in legislation in 2013, would replace the current piecemeal approach to coverage through many different programs—private insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP—with government-provided coverage for everyone. As with the Affordable Care Act’s health care exchanges, Sanders’ 2013 bill relies on states to develop single-payer plans. But as the Sanders campaign stresses, any state that refused to set up a singe-payer system would have the federal government step in and do it. So unlike with the current Medicaid expansion, states could not opt out of “Berniecare.”

“It is time for the United States to join the rest of the industrialized world and provide health care as a right to every man, woman, and child,” Sanders campaign spokeswoman Arianna Jones said in a statement responding to Chelsea Clinton’s attack. “A Medicare-for-all plan will save the average middle-class family $5,000 a year. Further, the Clinton campaign is wrong. Our plan will be implemented in every state in the union regardless of who is governor.”

Like her daughter, Hillary Clinton has taken to attacking Sanders over health care, despite having said in 2008 that Democrats shouldn’t criticize each other over universal health care. In Iowa on Monday, Clinton called Sanders’ plan a “risky deal.” Expect this issue to come up on Sunday, when Clinton and Sanders face off in the last debate before voting begins with the February 1 caucuses in Iowa.

Read this article:

Chelsea Clinton Accuses Sanders of Trying to "Dismantle Obamacare"

Posted in Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Chelsea Clinton Accuses Sanders of Trying to "Dismantle Obamacare"

Clinton Once Said Democrats Should Never Attack Each Other Over Universal Health Care

by LyndaSifford Posted on January 12, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Hillary Clinton is going after Bernie Sanders on health care reform. On Monday, she warned that his proposal for universal single-payer health care was a “risky deal” that would tear apart the Affordable Care Act and “start over.” On Tuesday, her daughter, Chelsea Clinton, followed suit. It’s an abrupt shift one month before the Iowa caucuses, but perhaps an inevitable one given Sanders’ rising poll numbers.

It’s also reverses the tactic her campaign embraced eight years ago. In the 2008 Democratic primary, it was Clinton who found herself on the defensive after then-Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign sent mailers to Ohio voters warning that her plan would force every citizen to buy health insurance. In a now-famous moment, Clinton held a press conference to trash the mailer and tell her opponent, “Shame on you”:

The Obama mailer was “not only wrong, but it is undermining core Democratic principles,” Clinton said at the time. “Since when do Democrats attack one another on universal health care? I thought we were trying to realize Harry Truman’s dream. I thought this campaign finally gave us an opportunity to put together a coalition to achieve universal health care.”

“This is wrong and every Democratic should be outraged because this is the kind of attack that not only undermines core Democratic values, but gives aid and comfort to the very special interests and their allies in the Republican Party who are against doing what we want to do for America,” she continued. “So shame on you, Barack Obama. It is time you ran a campaign consistent with your messages in public. That’s what I expect from you. Meet me in Ohio. Let’s have a debate about your tactics and your behavior in this campaign.”

Then again, Obama’s tactics worked—and his campaign promises didn’t stop him from making the individual mandate, floated by Clinton, a critical part of his health care plan as president.

This article: 

Clinton Once Said Democrats Should Never Attack Each Other Over Universal Health Care

Posted in Anchor, Citizen, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Clinton Once Said Democrats Should Never Attack Each Other Over Universal Health Care

The Solar Industry’s Christmas Miracle

by LeeGetz986282874 Posted on December 24, 2015

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

This story was originally published by Slate and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

We all know the hallmarks of the classic business-themed Christmas movie. A good, well-meaning executive faces some tough business fundamentals as the holiday season approaches. Unexpected events deepen the gloom. But just in time for Christmas, a miracle arrives from on high, ensuring peace, prosperity, and happiness for years to come.

It’s a Wonderful Life? Yes. But it’s also the story of solar companies in the past few months. In November, things were looking bleak for the renewable energy sector at large and for solar companies in particular. The sector has been booming since 2009. The price of installing solar panels has come down sharply as scale has risen, new business models have hastened the spread of the technology, and giant companies are entering contracts to buy huge volumes of renewable energy. But none of that would have been possible without 1) the special federal tax breaks and credits for owners of solar panels, and 2) abundant capital seeking returns in a world of extraordinarily low interest rates. And in the second half of 2015, the investment thesis that kept solar stocks burning bright began to dim.

The solar investment tax credit—in which owners of solar-panel systems get a 30 percent tax credit—was always meant to be temporary and is set to expire next year. The Republicans in Congress generally favor fossil fuels over renewables, generally oppose anything President Obama is for, and deny the need to deal with climate change. So as fall settled in, investors began to focus on the fact that by the end of 2016, the solar investment tax credit of 30 percent would fall to 10 percent for commercial systems and disappear entirely for home-based systems.

Another problem: Renewable energy is as much about financial engineering as it is about electrical engineering. For solar to work, investors had to believe that the structures rigged up to build solar would stand up over time. In recent years, energy companies had hived off renewable energy projects into special, publicly traded vehicles—yieldcos—that were supposed to pay dividends. But many of them failed to deliver expected results. Worse, the attractiveness of such fixed-income investments stands in inverse relation to the interest rates available elsewhere. And with the Federal Reserve telegraphing an interest rate increase in December, investors began to flee yieldcos.

Finally, the entire renewable industry depends to a large degree on the zeitgeist. When the world is in a green mood, when it looks like there will be a widespread, coordinated effort to combat climate change, investors get psyched about solar. When it appears that the will for collective action is fading, investors get the blahs. And throughout October and November, it was common to hear observers argue that the much-bruited Paris conference was going to be a bust, that it would deadlock over conflicts between rich and poor nations.

There’s a cruelty and ruthlessness to the markets, which can provide a fire hose of capital on Monday only to shut it off entirely on Tuesday. And that’s what began to happen in November. Stock markets are famously futures markets, and forward-looking investors suddenly didn’t like what they were seeing in the future. The stock of SunEdison, the self-proclaimed “largest global renewable energy development company,” fell from a high of $31.50 in July to a low of $2.86 on Nov. 19—a loss of 91 percent. The stock helped sandbag the performance of well-known hedge fund manager David Einhorn, whose sale of a big chunk of SunEdison stock helped increase the melancholy. Analysts began to question the company’s liquidity, which is poison for a company with lots of debt. SolarCity, the giant rooftop-panel installer founded by Elon Musk and his cousins, saw its stock fall from $62 in May to $25 in early November, a decline of about 59 percent.

Like George Bailey, investors and executives at solar companies were essentially teetering on the bridge outside of town.

And then a series of miracles happened. On December 12, the Paris climate talks concluded with an unexpectedly strong agreement among countries to attempt to limit emissions. The US publicly recommitted to green policies, and a large number of giant, influential global companies signed on to an initiative to get 100 percent of their energy from renewable sources. Investors began to reconsider their pessimism.

Next, Washington delivered—defying the conventional wisdom. Newly installed House Speaker Paul Ryan realized that he’d have to negotiate with congressional Democrats if he wanted to get a budget and tax deal before the end of the year. And as they came to the table, another miracle happened: The Democrats held fast. On December 14, Democrats indicated they would be willing to support the Republican-backed effort to lift the ban on oil exports—but only if the Republicans would consent to measures including a multiyear extension of renewable energy credits. It worked. Last Friday, Congress voted to extend the 30 percent solar investment tax credit through 2019, and then to reduce it to 10 percent through 2022.

That move instantly made the US solar industry viable for another six years. Investors were elated. SolarCity’s stock popped as details of the budget agreement began to emerge and then soared on its announcement. By Friday, the stock was above $56, up about 117 percent from its November low. SunEdison’s stock closed on Friday at $6.51, up 127 percent in a month. The Guggenheim Solar ETF is up about 30 percent from Nov. 19 through last Friday.

God bless us, everyone.

See original: 

The Solar Industry’s Christmas Miracle

Posted in Anchor, ATTRA, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Pines, Radius, solar, solar panels, solar power, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Solar Industry’s Christmas Miracle

Campaign Finance Regulators Won’t Do Their Job. Can a Lawsuit Force Their Hand?

by FlorentShq Posted on December 21, 2015

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

It’s a case that has haunted campaign finance watchdogs for years. The Commission on Hope, Growth, and Opportunity (CHGO) emerged in early 2010 as a nonprofit that would not engage in political work. Then, in the six weeks before the 2010 elections, the group spent about $4 million on political ads across 15 congressional races, all attacking Democrats. But in filings with the IRS, the group maintained that none of its spending was campaign-related, and it did not disclose any of its spending with the Federal Election Commission. Facing complaints from federal regulators, the group folded. Some of its key players—including Scott Reed, now a top strategist at the US Chamber of Commerce, and Wayne Berman, the chief fundraiser for Marco Rubio’s presidential campaign—split more than $1 million in leftover funds. No one involved was ever sanctioned.

Almost all the money CHGO raised came from a single donor. The group’s ability to spring up, use secret money to influence elections, and then disappear provides a template for rich donors who want to pick off or boost candidates without revealing their political activity.

But one watchdog group, the Democratic-leaning Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), believes it has found a way to hold the group’s key players accountable. If successful, the effort could set its own template for forcing lax federal regulators to crack down on campaign finance violations by the types of outside groups that have been awash in money since the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United ruling.

Continue Reading »

Excerpt from: 

Campaign Finance Regulators Won’t Do Their Job. Can a Lawsuit Force Their Hand?

Posted in Anchor, Citizen, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Campaign Finance Regulators Won’t Do Their Job. Can a Lawsuit Force Their Hand?

Mitch McConnell Just Made It Virtually Impossible to Police Dark Money in 2016

by MarcelaWilshire Posted on December 17, 2015

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Conservative Solutions Project has run more than 4,882 ads in support of Marco Rubio this election—and not a dime of its funding has been made public. As a politically active nonprofit, the outfit is theoretically regulated by the Internal Revenue Service, but thanks to clever legislative maneuvering by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and congressional Republicans, there’s no danger that the IRS will apply any special scrutiny to the people or corporations generously financing this key component of Rubio’s run for president. (His actual campaign unveiled its first ad just a few weeks ago).

Buried deep in the massive end-of-the-year spending bill released late Tuesday night were provisions that not only prohibit the IRS from cracking down on groups like Conservative Solutions Project, but that block the Securities and Exchange Commission from prying into the political spending of public companies.

In last year’s budget deal, McConnell pushed through higher limits for campaign contributions to party organizations, allowing wealthy donors to chip in hundreds of thousands of dollars. During this year’s budget negotiations, McConnell initially tried to further loosen restrictions on how party committees spend money. But he faced strong opposition from an unusual coalition of congressional Democrats and members of the ultraconservative Freedom Caucus. The pushback appears to have caused McConnell, a longtime foe of campaign finance rules, to abandon the plan. But he did manage to slip provisions into the legislation that weakened enforcement and transparency when it comes to politically active nonprofits.

Continue Reading »

Visit source:

Mitch McConnell Just Made It Virtually Impossible to Police Dark Money in 2016

Posted in Anchor, Citizen, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Mitch McConnell Just Made It Virtually Impossible to Police Dark Money in 2016

Report: Yes, a GOP Megadonor Did Secretly Buy Nevada’s Biggest Newspaper

by WallyLUDCfn Posted on December 16, 2015

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

The mystery surrounding the secretive purchase of Nevada’s biggest newspaper has finally come to a close. Fortune reports that multiple sources familiar with the deal have confirmed that Las Vegas casino owner and GOP megadonor Sheldon Adelson bought the Las Vegas Review-Journal last week, but attempted to keep the purchase hidden.

Speculation has been rampant since the newspaper’s management told staff last Friday that the paper had been sold for $140 million to a newly incorporated Delaware-based shell corporation. The paper had only just been sold by its longtime owner for $105 million in February to Gatehouse Media, a national chain that is publicly traded. The premium price paid by the new owner—at a time when print newspapers are seen as disastrous investments—raised red flags, as did the comments made to newsroom staff by a man named Michael Schroeder, who was introduced as a “manager” for the shell corporation.

Schroeder told the staff that the new owners were “undisclosed financial backers with expertise in the media industry,” but declined to specify. In the newspaper’s first story on the sale, an initial draft included a quote from Schroeder in which he appeared to dismiss concerns of the employees by saying, “They want you to focus on your jobs…don’t worry about who they are.” But the newspaper presses were literally stopped to edit the article and the quote was pulled, as were other critical comments, before a new version of the article was printed.

Today, the Review-Journal published its own front-page article highlighting the outrage in journalism circles over the mysterious sale—there are no other newspapers of any significance in the United States whose owners are not known—as well as clues that Schroeder has links to Adelson. The paper reported that Schroeder had worked with another man who now runs a news service that distributes content from one of the newspapers that Adelson owns in Israel.

Fortune’s report relies on “multiple sources familiar with the situation” who said the buyer was Adelson. One informed source told Mother Jones earlier this week that Adelson had privately mused about buying the newspaper in the past, and the Review-Journal‘s report today includes details that Adelson attempted to purchase the newspaper in February when it was last sold, but was unable to.

Adelson’s representative did not respond to requests for comment earlier this week on whether he was the purchaser.

Adelson, who has donated more than $100 million to almost exclusively conservative political causes, including more than $92 million alone in the 2012 presidential election to try to defeat President Barack Obama in his reelection, has not been shy about using his Isreali newspapers as a political cudgel. Adelson founded Israel Hayom, a free daily newspaper that supports Isreali Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, of whom Adelson is a fervent supporter. The paper is now the largest-circulation newspaper in Israel. Earlier this year, it published numerous enthusiastic articles about Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, rumored to be Adelson’s favorite GOP candidate for the 2016 election.

While no official confirmation of Adelson’s role has been made, questions are already swirling about why the secrecy was necessary. Ultimately, only Adelson knows, but the Las Vegas paper might be of particular use to Adelson, politically speaking, for several reasons. The Review-Journal is the largest-circulation paper in the state, making it a powerful tool in the run-up to the Nevada caucus, which will be in mid-February and is one of the first on the primary schedule (third for Democrats and fourth for Republicans). Additionally, Adelson is deeply embroiled in a battle over whether the federal government should ban internet gambling: He supports a ban, but stands nearly alone in the casino industry in that position. Sympathetic management of the Las Vegas paper could give him a needed boost in the fight.

More – 

Report: Yes, a GOP Megadonor Did Secretly Buy Nevada’s Biggest Newspaper

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Report: Yes, a GOP Megadonor Did Secretly Buy Nevada’s Biggest Newspaper

President Obama’s Terrorism Problem

by VivienMaxie Posted on December 7, 2015

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

On Sunday night, President Barack Obama gave a speech on terrorism that the New York Times cast as an effort “to calm jittery Americans after the terrorist attack last week” in San Bernardino, California. But can Obama accomplish that mission? That is, can any president, with words, ease public anxiety over this sort of act? And, perhaps more important, how much can any president do to prevent a repeat of that horror?

In a highly political season—as Republican presidential candidates desperately maneuver for advantage before the voting starts in their party’s primaries and caucuses—Obama has a tough task: to present the campaign against ISIS, Al Qaeda, and other extremists in the proper context. A recent MSNBC/Telemundo/Marist poll—which was taken before the San Bernardino attack but after the Paris attacks and the Planned Parenthood shootings in Colorado—found that the biggest concern for many Americans was being a victim of terrorism. Thirty-six percent tagged terrorism as their top concern, and 31 percent said gun violence. (Six out of ten Republicans said terrorism was their greatest fear; only 22 percent of Democrats felt that way.) This poll also discovered that jobs and the economy ranked as the most important issue for voters when it comes to picking a president (28 percent), while terrorism placed second (15 percent).

Continue Reading »

Original post: 

President Obama’s Terrorism Problem

Posted in alo, Anchor, Citizen, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on President Obama’s Terrorism Problem