Tag Archives: money in politics

Koch-Linked Women’s Group Takes Credit for Mark Sanford’s Win

by ghd12australia Posted on May 8, 2013

Mother Jones

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

Soon after Mark Sanford, the former governor of South Carolina who resigned in disgrace in 2009, pulled off an upset win in his congressional race on Tuesday, a conservative group called the Independent Women’s Voice boasted of its role in his victory. “Independent Women’s Voice was the only outside group supporting Sanford on a significant scale, by educating voters about the facts about the Democratic candidate,” IWV president Heather Higgins said in a statement. IWV spent $250,000 on TV and print ads in the last week of the election, helping to power Sanford to victory over Democrat Elizabeth Colbert Busch in a special election in South Carolina’s 1st Congressional district.

And if the billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch are encouraged by Sanford’s win, they, too, can claim a degree of credit, for IWV has plenty of ties to the Koch political network.

IWV, a nonprofit group that doesn’t have to name its funders (and can’t make politics the majority of what it does), is the sister organization of the Independent Women’s Forum, another nonprofit focused more on policy issues. Higgins, who chairs IWF’s board, has staked out a position as a leading critic of Obamacare. She also argues that independent women voters are not destined to vote Democratic and, instead, these women are up for grabs on political and policy matters and can be won over by Republicans—if GOPers get their messaging right.

When IWV applied for tax-exempt status in September 2004, it listed Nancy Pfotenhauer, a former Koch Industries lobbyist, as its president. (She also had a leadership position at Independent Women’s Forum.) Pfotenhauer, who is currently a Koch spokeswoman, has filled a number of roles with Koch-linked groups. She was formerly the president of Americans for Prosperity, the Kochs’ flagship advocacy organization, and is now a director at AFP. She was a vice president for Citizens for a Sound Economy, the Koch-backed predecessor to AFP. She also advised John McCain’s during his 2008 presidential campaign.

IWV does not have to disclose its donors, but the group received $250,000 in 2009 from the Center to Protect Patient Rights, a money conduit for conservative nonprofits run by Koch operative Sean Noble. As the Center for Responsive Politics has reported, the Center to Protect Patient Rights handed out $44 million in 2010 and nearly $15 million in 2011 to an array of nonprofit groups including Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform and the 60 Plus Association, which describes itself as the “conservative alternative” to the AARP. Noble spoke at a 2010 Koch donor retreat (PDF) in Aspen, Colorado. Pfotenhauer spoke at the same retreat, as did Higgins.

Higgins also briefly served on the board of the Center to Protect Patient Rights. There is no public information revealing whether IWV still receives financial support from Koch-linked sources.

There’s another curious wrinkle about IWV. In its 2004 application for tax-exempt status, the group said it would not spend “any money” on influencing elections. Yet in later tax filings, IWV changed its tune and told the IRS it spent $772,435 on elections in 2010. There are no tax filings available yet detailing IWV activity in 2012 or 2013.

IWV’s six-figure spending on Mark Sanford’s behalf was anything but a safe bet. But as it turns out, it was money very well spent.

Continue reading: 

Koch-Linked Women’s Group Takes Credit for Mark Sanford’s Win

Posted in Citizen, FF, GE, ONA, ProPublica, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Koch-Linked Women’s Group Takes Credit for Mark Sanford’s Win

Mark Follman on "Inside Story": The Power of the NRA

by p9zyztu Posted on May 6, 2013

Mother Jones

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

Two weeks after Congress killed off gun control legislation, the National Rifle Association declared victory in Houston at its annual national convention. In a speech, Wayne LaPierre extolled what he portrayed as a diverse crowd in attendance. But is the true source of the NRA’s power grassroots or corporate? Mother Jones senior editor Mark Follman joined author Paul Barrett and former NRA lobbyist Richard Feldman on Al Jazeera‘s “Inside Story” to debate how the famously secretive and fact–challenged gun group operates. Watch:

Bonus video: Behold the Texas governor’s entrance at this year’s NRA convention, dubbed by one YouTube poster as “Rick Perry’s super bad ass NRA gun intro video.” Come for the rocking soundtrack, stay for Perry’s manly removal of an assault rifle magazine:

Read our full special report on gun laws and the rise of mass shootings in America.

Mark Follman is a senior editor at Mother Jones. Read more of his stories and follow him on Twitter.

Excerpt from:  

Mark Follman on "Inside Story": The Power of the NRA

Posted in FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Mark Follman on "Inside Story": The Power of the NRA

Inside the Democracy Alliance, the Liberal Answer to the Koch Donor Network

by Diana A. Kincaid Posted on May 6, 2013

Mother Jones

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

Once or twice a year, Charles Koch, the billionaire industrialist and one-half of the “Koch brothers” duo, invites several hundred donors, big-name politicians, and conservative thinkers to a posh resort somewhere classy like Palm Springs or Aspen or Vail. The Kochs and their allies discuss how best to elect their favored politicians and spread their free-market ideas, and they hear pitches from conservative activists trying to carry out that strategy on the ground. Then the attendees make a pledge to fund the groups fighting for their causes. The Koch donor retreats are, by now, well known in political circles, and a magnet for reporters and protesters.

What’s often left unmentioned in coverage of the Kochs’ gatherings is that Democrats and progressives do the same thing. The Democracy Alliance is an exclusive group of about 100 funders, founded in 2005 by Democratic strategist Rob Stein. Members include billionaire financier George Soros and Facebook cofounder Chris Hughes, who owns the New Republic magazine. Matea Gold of the Los Angeles Times was recently given a rare glimpse inside the Alliance’s operations, and she came away with a useful, fascinating story.

Since 2005, the Alliance has directed roughly $500 million to left-leaning organizations, including the Center for American Progress think tank, the watchdog Media Matters for America, and the political data firm Catalist. The Democracy Alliance, as an organization, does not make donations; instead, leaders of left-leaning organizations pitch the group’s members, and the Alliance recommends which causes its wealthy members should support. Members must give at least $200,000 annually to Alliance-backed organizations, on top of a $30,000-a-year membership fee.

The Alliance recently met over five days at a hotel in Laguna Beach, Calif., not far from the Koch donor meeting at the Renaissance Esmeralda golf resort in Palm Springs. At the Laguna Beach retreat, Gold reports, Alliance members pledged $50 million to an array of organizations.

Two story lines emerged out of the latest Alliance event. One was an intense focus on immigration reform among Alliance members as Congress considers bipartisan legislation to overhaul the country’s immigration system. The other big news was the Alliance’s endorsement of Organizing for Action, the nonprofit devoted to enacting President Obama’s second-term agenda. OFA has said it wants to raise $50 million this year, but it raked in less than $5 million in the first three months of 2013. The Alliance’s decision to back OFA, then, couldn’t have come at a better time:

Among those on hand to pitch to the donors was Jon Carson, executive director of Organizing for Action, who stressed the ways in which his group is partnering with other liberal advocacy organizations.

“One thing we’ve made very clear to everyone is we’re going to work very collaboratively with everyone out there in the progressive infrastructure,” Carson said. “We’re going to focus on the pieces we bring to the table and not duplicate things.”

Alliance chairman (and former Mother Jones board member) Rob McKay said Carson assuaged worries that Organizing for Action, run by former Obama campaign officials, would compete with other groups. “The biggest concern would be if OFA was just going to try to re-create the wheel in a bunch of areas where we felt significant investments have been made,” he said.

The pro-Obama group, which had already received some donations from Democracy Alliance members, was recommended for funding for one year. It will be reconsidered next year but was not included in the three-year portfolio.

The hottest topic of the conference was immigration reform, as leaders of the Service Employees International Union and other advocates emphasized that comprehensive legislation could pass this year.

“The partners were really impressed with how close we are on this, and yet how tenuous it is, even at this stage,” McKay said. “We’ve got to get this done.”

The full story is one of the better detailed accounts I’ve seen of the Democracy Alliance, which will continue to play a crucial role on immigration, gun control, and other pressing issues on Congress’ to-do list.

Originally posted here:  

Inside the Democracy Alliance, the Liberal Answer to the Koch Donor Network

Posted in FF, G & F, GE, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Inside the Democracy Alliance, the Liberal Answer to the Koch Donor Network

What the NRA’s Millions Do—And Don’t—Buy

by gammak Posted on May 1, 2013

Mother Jones

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

In the days leading up to last month’s crucial votes on the most significant gun control legislation to come before the Senate in nearly two decades, polls showed that about 90 percent of Americans supported background checks for all gun purchases. But when the clerk called the roll, the centerpiece amendment—requiring background checks for firearm sales at gun shows, through classified ads and on the Internet—got just 54 yeas, six votes short of the 60 vote super-majority required.

Just four months after Adam Lanza killed 26 people at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, and President Obama promised tougher gun laws, the vote proved to be the latest in a long-running string of victories for gun rights activists, the firearms industry, and particularly the National Rifle Association, the nation’s pre-eminent gun lobby.

The power of the gun lobby is rooted in multiple factors, among them the pure passion and single-mindedness of many gun owners, the NRA’s demonstrated ability to motivate its most fervent members to swarm their elected representatives, and the lobby’s ability to get out the vote on election day. But there’s little doubt that money, the political power it represents, and the fear of that power and money, which the NRA deftly exploits, have a lot to do with the group’s ability to repeatedly control the national debate about guns. Whether that fear is justified is an intriguing question—but it clearly exists. That has, perhaps, never been clearer than it was last month on Capitol Hill.


NRA’s School Security Plan Cites Phony Shooting


This Collection of NRA Ads Reveals Its Descent Into Crazy


Investigators Discover NRA Materials in Newtown Killer’s House


The NRA Myth of Gun-Free Zones


Gunmakers and the NRA Bet Big on Silencers. What Could Go Wrong?


EXCLUSIVE: Unmasking the NRA’s Inner Circle


Meet the NRA’s Board of Directors


The NRA Myth of Arming the Good Guys


How the NRA and Its Allies Helped Spread a Radical Gun Law Nationwide

See our full special report on gun laws and the rise of mass shootings in America.

Big money, big gaps

For starters, the dollars and cents disparities are nothing short of staggering. The NRA and its allies in the firearms industries, along with the even more militant Gun Owners of America, have together poured nearly $81 million into House, Senate and presidential races since the 2000 election cycle, according to federal disclosures and a Center for Responsive Politics analysis done for the Center for Public Integrity.

The bulk of the cash—more than $46 million—has come in the form of independent expenditures made since court decisions in 2010 (especially the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision) essentially redefined electoral politics. Those decisions allowed individuals, corporations, associations and unions to make unlimited “independent” expenditures aimed at electing or defeating candidates in federal elections, so long as the expenditures were not “coordinated” with a candidate’s actual campaign.

Continue Reading »

Original source:  

What the NRA’s Millions Do—And Don’t—Buy

Posted in alo, Citizen, FF, GE, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on What the NRA’s Millions Do—And Don’t—Buy

Ed Markey Is On Track to Replace John Kerry—With the Help of the "Green Billionaire"

by olekdd3 Posted on May 1, 2013

Mother Jones

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

Congressman Ed Markey is one step closer to replacing Secretary of State John Kerry in the US Senate. On Tuesday, he cruised past John Lynch, a fellow Democratic congressman, in the special Democratic primary in Massachusetts to fill Kerry’s vacated seat. With nearly all precincts reporting, Markey held a commanding lead of 57 percent to 43 percent over Lynch.

Markey will face ex-Navy SEAL Gabriel Gomez in a special general election to be held in late June. Gomez is a political newcomer. His only prior run for office was an bid to win a seat on the board of selectmen in tiny Cohasset, Mass. (He lost.) That didn’t stop Senate Majority PAC, a Democratic super-PAC, from describing Gomez as “Mitt Romney Jr.,” a businessman-turned-politician who wants to cut benefits for senior citizens and lower taxes for the wealthiest Americans. Gomez, for his part, has pledged to “reboot” Congress by instituting, among other changes, term limits for politicians and a lifetime ban on lobbying.

Markey has carved out a liberal record during his 20 terms in the House—a long political career that his opponents will no doubt use against him. Over those years, he has established a reputation as one of Congress’ leading advocates for protecting the environment and fighting climate change. He co-authored one of the most comprehensive pieces of legislation to address climate change, the American Clean Energy and Security Act in 2009, which failed to make it through Congress.

Markey’s strong environmental record helps explain why he got an assist in his win over Lynch from the San Francisco hedge fund investor and environmentalist Tom Steyer. Despite Markey and Lynch agreeing to a “People’s Pledge” to keep outside money out of their race, Steyer’s NextGen super-PAC spent more than $400,000 on online ads and microtargeting, often hammering Lynch over his support for the controversial Keystone XL pipeline. Steyer’s involvement added some drama to a off-year primary with a lackluster turnout.

Steyer says he will use his fortune, estimated at $1.4 billion, to drag the issue of climate change into the spotlight in American politics and to combat the influence of climate change deniers and the oil lobby. He’s taking a similar approach to the climate issue that New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg takes on gun control: supporting candidates who see things his way and attacking those who do not. “Really, what we’re trying to do is to make a point that people who make good decisions on this should be rewarded, and people should be aware that if they do the wrong thing, the American voters are watching and they will be punished,” Steyer told the Hill.

Long active in California politics, the Markey-Lynch race was Steyer’s first big foray as an outside spender into a marquee Congressional race. He drew howls with an open letter giving Lynch a deadline of “high noon” to flip his position on the Keystone pipeline. But by the end of the campaign, Steyer’s spending appeared to have boosted Markey (even if the veteran congressman didn’t really need the help to win Tuesday’s primary). And a dedicated environmentalist is now on the cusp of filling John Kerry’s old seat—exactly what Steyer wants.

Steyer has yet to say if he’ll go after Gabriel Gomez in the general election. But he’s one for one so far, and given every indication he plans to spend a lot more money in the months and years ahead.

Continue reading here: 

Ed Markey Is On Track to Replace John Kerry—With the Help of the "Green Billionaire"

Posted in Citizen, FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Ed Markey Is On Track to Replace John Kerry—With the Help of the "Green Billionaire"

Senators Take Another Swing at Dark Money Disclosure

by pawel Posted on April 29, 2013

Mother Jones

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

Late last year, Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) penned a Washington Post op-ed taking aim at Citizens United, the 2010 Supreme Court ruling that helped open the floodgates for political nonprofits spending cash in the dark to influence elections. “At minimum, the American people deserve to know before they cast their ballots who is behind massive spending, who is funding people and organizations, and what their agendas are,” the senators wrote.

Now Murkowski and Wyden have followed up by introducing a bill that would require any group that spends at least $10,000 on an election to disclose all of its donors who donated $1,000 or more. Currently, tax-exempt 501(c) groups that engage in political spending have no legal obligation to reveal their donors. (That’s not the case with super-PACs, as the AP erroneously reported, although many super-PACs skirt disclosure by accepting donations funneled through affiliated nonprofits.) Super-PACs and dark-money groups spent more than $1 billion during the 2012 election.

Murkowski first hinted she supported shining more sunlight on dark-money groups last summer when the Senate was debating the DISCLOSE Act, which is similar to her new bill. (She voted against DISCLOSE for not being strong or bipartisan enough.) Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) filibustered DISCLOSE twice, deriding it as “nothing more than member and donor harassment and intimidation.” His continued opposition to campaign finance reform means that the Wyden-Murkowski bill will also face a GOP filibuster.

If it managed to defy McConnell’s opposition and pass the Republican-led House, the Wyden-Murkowski bill would also enact some smaller campaign finance reforms: It would require Senate candidates to file disclosure reports directly with the Federal Election Commission so they can be posted online more quickly and replace the FEC’s quarterly reports with a real-time reporting system. And while it would require greater transparency for big donors, it would ease requirements for small donors by lifting the disclosure threshold for gifts to candidates from $200 to $1,000.

Original post:  

Senators Take Another Swing at Dark Money Disclosure

Posted in Citizen, FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Senators Take Another Swing at Dark Money Disclosure

This Libertarian Presidential Hopeful Wants Your Bitcoin Donations

by BakenKesselring341 Posted on April 29, 2013

Mother Jones

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

Darryl W. Perry says he’s running for president in 2016 as a libertarian, and he’s pledging to be the first White House hopeful to accept Bitcoin, the online currency currently en vogue in tech and libertarian circles.

Bitcoin appeals to libertarians who are skeptical of the Federal Reserve and other central banking institutions. As Jim Harper, the director of information policy studies at the Cato Institute, recently told Mother Jones, “There are types like me, libertarian gold-buggish folks,” for whom “inflation is a constant worry” and who “see the cryptography in Bitcoin as insulation against inflation.” The US Libertarian Party accepts Bitcoin donations on its website, and the Libertarian Party of Canada joined the Bitcoin bandwagon in March.

Perry laid out his decision to accept Bitcoin in a recent open letter to the Federal Election Commission, the nation’s beleaguered elections watchdog. The Darryl W. Perry for President campaign, he said, will not accept any donations “in currencies recognized by the federal legal tender laws.” The only currencies going into Perry’s campaign war chest are Bitcoin, Litecoin (another online currency), and precious metals. “I am attempting to put into practice a belief that I hold that we should get rid of the Federal Reserve, which is a central bank,” he recently explained. “And unlike some who want to get rid of the Fed, I don’t want the government stepping in to fill the void.”

Believe it or not, refusing to accept actual money may not be Perry’s biggest obstacle to running for president. Unlike the Libertarian Party, Perry disavows the very existence of the FEC and denies its authority to regulate campaigns. Perry says he will not file any paperwork with the commission establishing his presidential campaign, nor will he disclose whom his bitcoin/litecoin/gold contributors are or how he spends their money. He ends his letter by writing, “I intend this to be the last communication I have with this commission as part of my campaign.”

How serious is Perry’s candidacy? His website is, well, far from inspiring, and there’s one brief mention of him on the US Libertarian Party’s website. But he’s nonetheless one of the early Bitcoin adopters in politics, following candidates in North Dakota, Vermont, and New Hampshire who decided to accept the online currency. Provided Bitcoin doesn’t bottom out in the months or years ahead—the price of a Bitcoin is vulnerable to wild swings, evidenced by a 60-percent drop a few weeks ago, quickly shedding $115 in value—I wouldn’t be surprised to see more libertarian types embrace Bitcoin donations.

Therein lies a challenge: Explaining Bitcoin to the average voter is hard enough. If the FEC ever tried to regulate it, well, good luck.

Excerpt from:  

This Libertarian Presidential Hopeful Wants Your Bitcoin Donations

Posted in Citizen, FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on This Libertarian Presidential Hopeful Wants Your Bitcoin Donations

Liberal Super-PAC’s First 2014 Target: Michele Bachmann

by donseoo Posted on April 25, 2013

Mother Jones

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

CREDO Super-PAC, the group that spent nearly $3 million to oust five conservative congressmen in 2012, has announced its first target of the 2014 midterms: Tea party firebrand Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.). The super-PAC says it will spend at least $500,000 to boot Bachmann out of office.

CREDO Super-PAC, an offshoot of the progressive phone company CREDO Mobile, knows Bachmann all too well. In 2012, the super-PAC named Bachmann one of the “Tea Party Ten” lawmakers that it set out to defeat. But Bachmann’s opponent, Democrat Jim Graves, and the outside groups hoping to oust her fell just short: She won by a few thousand votes. When I interviewed Becky Bond, the politically geeky president of CREDO Super-PAC, after the elections, she told me her biggest regret was the Bachmann race. “If we could do it again, we would’ve taken her on earlier and she would’ve lost,” Bond said.

That explains why CREDO Super-PAC is launching its anti-Bachmann campaign 18 months before the 2014 elections. In its announcement, CREDO says it will use the same data-driven, grassroots-centric strategy to oust Bachmann as it did in 2012. As I’ve written before, CREDO is something of an outlier on the super-PAC landscape: While most super-PACs poured millions of dollars into TV, radio, and Internet ads, in many cases to little effect, CREDO opened field offices in ten congressional districts, hired organizers, signed up volunteers, and used political data to inform their work.

Here’s what CREDO said in its Bachmann announcement:

“What kind of a signal does it send that not only is Rep. Michele Bachmann in Congress, but she’s on the House Intelligence Committee?” asked Becky Bond, president of CREDO Super-PAC. “Bachmann’s bigotry and bizarre political views don’t represent Minnesota values. Bachmann has launched an anti-Muslim witch hunt, actually believes that gay marriage is the biggest problem facing the nation, and has even claimed that Obamacare kills people.

“Bachmann won by a mere 4,000 votes in 2012, and is beatable in 2014. If our volunteers in Minnesota’s 6th district can turn out enough voters, the Tea Party Caucus in Congress will be down yet one more bigoted conspiracy theorist.”

Aside from being a climate denier and promoting hate and bigotry, Rep. Bachmann has been making headlines lately for being embroiled in multiple campaign scandals. Rep. Bachmann is currently under investigation by the Federal Election Commission, the Office of Congressional Ethics and the Iowa Senate Ethics Committee for allegedly authorizing improper campaign payments, among a host of other potentially illegal activities.

Instead of spending millions on expensive TV advertising, CREDO Super-PAC will employ a proven campaign model that helped defeat some of the most extreme Tea Party Republicans in 2012, including former Reps. Chip Cravaack and Allen West. CREDO Super PAC will open an office in Minnesota’s 6th congressional district, hire on the ground organizers, and begin mobilizing volunteers to get out the vote against Bachmann. CREDO Super PAC will use cutting-edge research to target a specific universe of voters in MN-06 to help make the difference on Election Day.

Jim Graves, Bachmann’s 2012 opponent, says he will run against her again in 2014.

Right now, Bachmann is in a tight spot. A former aide, Peter Waldron, alleged that Bachmann’s presidential campaign made secret payments to an Iowa state senator in violation of Iowa ethics rules. And Bachmann’s former chief of staff, Andy Parrish, said in an affidavit that Bachmann “knew and approved of” those payments to the state senator, Kent Sorenson. Sorenson has denied the allegations, calling them “totally baseless, without evidence, and a waste of Iowans’ time and money.” An attorney for Bachmann says the congresswoman “followed all applicable laws and ethical rules and instructed those working for her to do the same.”

See the article here: 

Liberal Super-PAC’s First 2014 Target: Michele Bachmann

Posted in FF, GE, ONA, oven, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Liberal Super-PAC’s First 2014 Target: Michele Bachmann

Here’s Why the NRA Won and Gabby Giffords and Mike Bloomberg Lost

by gammak Posted on April 18, 2013

Mother Jones

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

More MoJo coverage of the Senate’s failed background check bill.


Here’s Why the NRA Won and Gabby Giffords and Mike Bloomberg Lost


“Shame On You!”: Senate Rejects Gun Background Check Compromise


Meet the 45 Senators Who Blocked Background Checks


Why Did These 4 Democrats Vote No on Gun Background Checks?


Have You Seen Mitch McConnell’s Facebook Page?


10 Reasons the Background Check Bill Means Victory for the NRA


Map: Most Americans Support Background Checks for All Gun Buyers

Also read our special report on gun laws and the rise of mass shootings.

On NBC’s Meet the Press last month, National Rifle Association honcho Wayne LaPierre, the face of the American gun lobby, delivered this message to New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg: “He’s going to find out that this is a country of the people, by the people, and for the people, and he can’t spend enough of his $27 billion to try to impose his will on the American public. He can’t buy America.” The day before, Bloomberg had announced that he would spend $12 million of his own money on an ad blitz pressing members of Congress to pass new legislation expanding background checks for gun purchases. LaPierre went on national television to tell the mayor that all those millions wouldn’t make the difference in the fight in Congress over new gun laws.

Guess what? LaPierre was right.

The Manchin-Toomey background check legislation that died in the Senate on Wednesday had everything going for it. Bipartisan sponsorship by two centrist senators. The support of 90 percent of Americans. President Obama’s full-throated backing. The momentum for reform created by tragedy and sympathetic advocates with gripping stories—ex-Rep. Gabby Giffords, the Newtown families. All the pieces were there.

Yet it failed. The bill won a 54-vote majority but fell short of the Senate’s 60-vote threshold to pass new laws, a high hurdle that progressives decry as undemocratic. But the main reason it failed—and this is the key point for gun-control advocates—is because the NRA has unrivaled political power, the kind of influence and muscle that Bloomberg, the Brady Campaign, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, Organizing for Action, Gabby Giffords and Mark Kelly, and the rest of the gun-control lobby can only dream of.

Continue Reading »

Source:  

Here’s Why the NRA Won and Gabby Giffords and Mike Bloomberg Lost

Posted in FF, GE, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Here’s Why the NRA Won and Gabby Giffords and Mike Bloomberg Lost

The Bipartisan Push to Keep the IRS from Competing with TurboTax

by BayalaHillesland628 Posted on April 15, 2013

Mother Jones

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

This piece originally appeared on the ProPublica website.

Last month, we detailed how Intuit, the maker of TurboTax, has fought a proposal that could make filing taxes easier and cheaper for millions of Americans.

As we noted, tax activist Grover Norquist and other conservatives have also opposed the proposal, called “return-free filing,” which would give many taxpayers the option to receive a pre-filled return that they could simply review, sign and send back, all for free. Return-free filing has been endorsed by many experts and adopted by several European countries.

As it turns out, Norquist has also recently weighed in on the side of the tax prep industry on another issue.

A House bill introduced earlier this year would bar the IRS from offering taxpayers software that would compete with programs like TurboTax. In March, Norquist and others wrote a letter to members of Congress that urged them to support the bill—what they called a “pro-taxpayer, anti-IRS power grab legislation.”

At issue is how Americans file their taxes and whether electronic filing can be offered directly through the IRS.

Continue Reading »

This article:  

The Bipartisan Push to Keep the IRS from Competing with TurboTax

Posted in FF, GE, ONA, ProPublica, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Bipartisan Push to Keep the IRS from Competing with TurboTax