Tag Archives: top stories

Billionaires Now Own American Politics

by deqc16rl Posted on May 20, 2013

Mother Jones

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

This story first appeared on the TomDispatch website.

Billionaires with an ax to grind, now is your time. Not since the days before a bumbling crew of would-be break-in artists set into motion the fabled Watergate scandal, leading to the first far-reaching restrictions on money in American politics, have you been so free to meddle. There is no limit to the amount of money you can give to elect your friends and allies to political office, to defeat those with whom you disagree, to shape or stunt or kill policy, and above all to influence the tone and content of political discussion in this country.

Today, politics is a rich man’s game. Look no further than the 2012 elections and that season’s biggest donor, 79-year-old casino mogul Sheldon Adelson. He and his wife, Miriam, shocked the political class by first giving $16.5 million in an effort to make Newt Gingrich the Republican presidential nominee. Once Gingrich exited the race, the Adelsons invested more than $30 million in electing Mitt Romney. They donated millions more to support GOP candidates running for the House and Senate, to block a pro-union measure in Michigan, and to bankroll the US Chamber of Commerce and other conservative stalwarts (which waged their own campaigns mostly to help Republican candidates for Congress). All told, the Adelsons donated $94 million during the 2012 cycle—nearly four times the previous record set by liberal financier George Soros. And that’s only the money we know about. When you add in so-called dark money, one estimate puts their total giving at closer to $150 million.

It was not one of Adelson’s better bets. Romney went down in flames; the Republicans failed to retake the Senate and conceded seats in the House; and the majority of candidates backed by Adelson-funded groups lost, too. But Adelson, who oozes chutzpah as only a gambling tycoon worth $26.5 billion could, is undeterred. Politics, he told the Wall Street Journal in his first post-election interview, is like poker: “I don’t cry when I lose. There’s always a new hand coming up.” He said he could double his 2012 giving in future elections. “I’ll spend that much and more,” he said. “Let’s cut any ambiguity.”

Continue Reading »

Original article: 

Billionaires Now Own American Politics

Posted in FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Billionaires Now Own American Politics

How the IRS’s Nonprofit Division Got So Dysfunctional

by Aaron Darek Posted on May 18, 2013

Mother Jones

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

This story first appeared on the ProPublica website.

The IRS division responsible for flagging Tea Party groups has long been an agency afterthought, beset by mismanagement, financial constraints and an unwillingness to spell out just what it expects from social welfare nonprofits, former officials and experts say.

The controversy that erupted in the past week, leading to the ousting of the acting Internal Revenue Service commissioner, an investigation by the FBI, and congressional hearings that kicked off Friday, comes against a backdrop of dysfunction brewing for years.

More MoJo coverage of the IRS tea party scandal


The IRS Tea Party Scandal, Explained


IG Report Says IRS Has No Idea What Its Own Rules Mean


5 Things You Need to Know in the Inspector General’s IRS Tea Party Scandal Report


Did the Acting IRS Commissioner Mislead Congress?


Word of the Month for May: BOLO


Ex-IRS Director: Tea Party Groups Deserved Scrutiny, But IRS Bungled the Job

Moves launched in the 1990s were designed to streamline the tax agency and make it more efficient. But they had unintended consequences for the IRS’s Exempt Organizations division.

Checks and balances once in place were taken away. Guidance frequently published by the IRS and closely read by tax lawyers and nonprofits disappeared. Even as political activity by social welfare nonprofits exploded in recent election cycles, repeated requests for the IRS to clarify exactly what was permitted for the secretly funded groups were met, at least publicly, with silence.

All this combined to create an isolated office in Cincinnati, plagued by what an inspector general this week described as “insufficient oversight,” of fewer than 200 low-level employees responsible for reviewing more than 60,000 nonprofit applications a year.

In the end, this contributed to what everyone from Republican lawmakers to the president says was a major mistake: The decision by the Ohio unit to flag for further review applications from groups with “Tea Party” and similar labels. This started around March 2010, with little pushback from Washington until the end of June 2011.

Continue Reading »

Continue reading: 

How the IRS’s Nonprofit Division Got So Dysfunctional

Posted in FF, GE, ONA, ProPublica, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on How the IRS’s Nonprofit Division Got So Dysfunctional

Is the Government Spying on Reporters More Often Than We Think?

by Diana A. Kincaid Posted on May 17, 2013

Mother Jones

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

The Justice Department’s seizure of call logs related to phone lines used by dozens of Associated Press reporters has provoked a flurry of bipartisan criticism, most of which has cast the decision as a disturbing departure from the norm. AP head Gary Pruitt condemned the decision, part of an investigation into leaks of classified information, as a “massive and unprecedented intrusion.” Yet there’s plenty of circumstantial evidence suggesting the seizure may not be unprecedented—just rarely disclosed.

The Justice Department is supposed to follow special rules when it seeks the phone records of reporters, in recognition that such snooping conflicts with First Amendment values. As Pruitt complained in an angry letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, those logs provided the government a “road map” of the stories his reporters were investigating, and there is evidence that such seizures deter anonymous sources from speaking to the press—whether they’re discussing classified programs or merely facts that embarrass the government.

Federal regulations require that the attorney general personally approve such a move, ensure the request is narrow and necessary, and notify the news organization about the request—in advance whenever possible. In this case, however, the Justice Department seems to have used an indiscriminate vacuum-cleaner approach—seeking information (from phone companies) about a wide range of phone numbers used by AP reporters—and it only notified AP after the fact.

It wouldn’t be surprising if there were more cases like this we’ve never heard about. Here’s why: The Justice Department’s rules only say the media must be informed about “subpoenas” for “telephone toll records.” The FBI’s operations guidelines interprets those rules quite literally, making clear the requirement “concerns only grand jury subpoenas.” That is, these rules don’t apply to National Security Letters, which are secret demands for information used by the FBI that don’t require judicial approval. The narrow FBI interpretation also doesn’t cover administrative subpoenas, which are issued by federal agencies without prior judicial review. Last year, the FBI issued NSLs for the communications and financial records of more than 6,000 Americans—and the number has been far higher in previous years. The procedures that do apply to those tools have been redacted from publicly available versions of the FBI guidelines. Thus, it’s no shocker the AP seizure would seem like an “unprecedented intrusion” if the government doesn’t think it has to tell us about the precedents. And there’s no telling if the Justice Department rules (and the FBI’s interpretation) allow the feds to seize without warning other types of electronic communications records that could reveal a journalist’s e-mail, chat, or Web browsing activity.

Is it paranoid to fear the Justice Department and the FBI are sidestepping the rules? Consider a case first reported in 2008, and discussed at length in a damning (but heavily redacted) 2010 report from the Justice Department’s Office of the Inspector General. In this instance, the FBI obtained nearly two years of phone records for lines belonging to Washington Post and New York Times bureaus and reporters—even though the FBI had initially requested records covering only seven months. In what the OIG called a “serious abuse of the FBI’s authority to obtain information,” agents seized these records under false pretenses, “without any legal process or Attorney General approval.” And these records remained in the FBI’s database for over three years before the OIG or the press found out.

It gets worse. The OIG report noted that the FBI had made “community of interest” requests to phone carriers; these requests sweep in not only the target’s call records, but those of people the target has spoken with—which can include reporters. Such requests can provide investigators an incredibly revealing portrait of entire social networks. Yet the OIG found that agents used boilerplate requests for information from the carriers; some claimed they submitted the requests without actually knowing exactly what “community of interest” meant, and even when they did it didn’t necessarily occur to them that they were likely to obtain reporter records through such requests. In other words, FBI agents often made these requests without fully understanding what they were requesting.

Only in January 2009 did the FBI think to ask the Justice Department’s in-house lawyers whether the press restrictions apply when reporter records are obtained through indirect means such as community of interest requests. Government lawyers said yes, but the FBI concluded it didn’t have to tell the press in the specific case it had inquired about, because agents had not “understood at the time the subpoenas were issued that the subpoenas called for reporters’ records.”

Lawmakers at a House Judiciary Committee hearing Wednesday grilled Holder about the AP investigation with little success: Holder had recused himself from this leak inquiry and was reluctant to discuss an “ongoing investigation.” But there’s plenty lawmakers can do beyond slamming Holder. Congress could demand an audit of previous government spying on reporters. Such a review would reveal whether the Justice Department believes it must disclose to its media targets when it has spied on reporters using methods other than subpoenas and whether its rules concerning obtaining reporters’ records cover internet material. This sort of audit would also cover how many journalists have been swept into government databases—directly, or indirectly under “community of interest” requests.

The real scandal may be just how much snooping on the media the current rules permit. To fully understand the AP seizures, the media and the public need a clearer picture of the rules governing all forms of spying on media—and how often such info-grabs have happened. Maybe the seizure of AP records is an extraordinary case. Or maybe the only extraordinary thing is that we’re hearing about it.

Continued:

Is the Government Spying on Reporters More Often Than We Think?

Posted in FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Is the Government Spying on Reporters More Often Than We Think?

Dubious Dealings of Tea Party Groups Could Have Drawn IRS Scrutiny

by Sandford Beech Posted on May 17, 2013

Mother Jones

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

Virtually everyone in Washington agrees on at least one thing about the IRS scandal: The tax agency’s trolling for tea party groups and giving extra scrutiny to their applications for nonprofit status was an egregious violation. Exactly how and why that conduct took place remains under investigation. But as conservatives in particular decry the IRS failure, it’s also worth considering the dubious fiscal history of some tea party groups, including their pursuit of non-profit status. While the IRS had absolutely no business profiling any groups based on political criteria, it is not blaming the victim to observe that scrutiny was warranted in specific cases—and they include some major tea party outfits and their leaders, documents show.

Indeed, despite the tea party’s emphasis on fiscal prudence in government, would-be nonprofit groups launched since the movement’s rise in 2009 have left a trail of tax-code shenanigans, infighting, and fiscal irresponsibility. Money raised by some groups was spent frivolously, and in some cases in ways that appeared to flout the tax rules barring nonprofits from political activity. There have been lawsuits between competing organizations over money, and tea party groups have disintegrated because of financial and other mismanagement.

Continue Reading »

Visit site:  

Dubious Dealings of Tea Party Groups Could Have Drawn IRS Scrutiny

Posted in FF, GE, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Dubious Dealings of Tea Party Groups Could Have Drawn IRS Scrutiny

The Next Senator From Georgia Will Probably be Nuts

by Justin Elder Posted on May 17, 2013

Mother Jones

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

The race to replace retiring Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) is starting to take shape, and it’s looking pretty one-sided. Rep. John Barrow, the Democrats’ most-promising statewide candidate, has already announced he isn’t running. The Republican field is growing. Former Georgia secretary of state Karen Handel, who gained notoriety last summer for attempting to sever the Susan G. Komen breast cancer foundation’s ties to Planned Parenthood, is reportedly considering a run. David Perdue, the cousin of former Gov. Sonny Perdue, launched an exploratory committee on Wednesday. If they both formally enter the race, they’ll join three candidates who made their intentions clear weeks ago: Reps. Phil Gingrey, Paul Broun, and Jack Kingston.

In their time in the House, the three congressmen have earned reputations as some of the lower chamber’s most conservative members—and also some of the most prone to going completely off the rails. Together, they pushed to block the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gases on the grounds that climate change is a hoax (more on that in a second). They’ve called on the Smithsonian to be investigated (Kingston), proposed personhood for zygotes (Broun) and sought to block the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act (Kingston again).

Here are some of their choicest quotes, each paired with a photo of an adorably confused animal so as to offset the general absurdity of suggesting (for example) that basic biology is a lie “straight from the pit of Hell”:

Africa Studio/Shutterstock

Who said it? Gingrey, coming to the defense of failed Missouri Republican senate candidate Todd Akin, whose suggestion that a woman who had been the victim of “legitimate rape” had “ways to shut that whole thing down.” Gingrey told a breakfast audience in January that as an ob-gyn, he often tells women who have trouble bearing children to “relax.”

FotoYokov/Shutterstock

Who said it? Broun, offering a justification for introducing a congressional resolution to make 2010 the “Year of the Bible.” “This doesn’t have anything to do with Christianity,” he told Politico.

Dorottya Mathe/Shutterstock

Who said it? Broun, discussing a recent trip to the airport on a 2011 edition of C-SPAN’s Washington Journal.

Liliya Kulianionak/Shutterstock

Who said it? Kingston, in 2005, as part of the first-ever installment of Stephen Colbert’s “Better Know a District” series.

otsphoto/Shutterstock

Who said it? Broun, in 2012, speaking in front a wall full of mounted deer heads. In response, he was repudiated by none other than Bill Nye, the Science Guy, who said Broun is “unqualified to make decisions about science, space and technology.”

Mat Hayward/Shutterstock

Who said it? Broun, one week after the 2008 election, just trying to bring attention to the fact that the president-elect might be a Marxist.

Maxy M/Shutterstock

Who said it? Gingrey, making his own ill-fated appearance on the Colbert Report, responding to the host’s suggestion that gay adoption is unnecessary because gay men can simply decide to become heterosexual.

Andrey_Kuzmin/Shutterstock

Who said it? Broun, pulling out all the stops in a floor speech during the 2010 debate over the Affordable Care Act.

S.P./Shutterstock

Who said it? Kingston, in a 2011 appearance on Real Time With Bill Maher.

Mark Herreid/Shutterstock

Who said it? Broun, totally not comparing Obama to Adolf Hitler, in 2010.

Schubbel/Shutterstock

Who said it? Gingrey, to Colbert.

Continue reading:  

The Next Senator From Georgia Will Probably be Nuts

Posted in FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on The Next Senator From Georgia Will Probably be Nuts

Should President Obama Fire Eric Holder?

by rqu0hfl0 Posted on May 16, 2013

Mother Jones

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

Michael Tomasky wants Eric Holder’s head on a platter:

Did I, as a liberal columnist who called immediately on President Obama to seek Eric Holder’s resignation over the Associated Press scandal, provide aid and comfort to the enemy? First of all, I don’t care—what happened struck me as a serious abuse of power….And second, no, I don’t think I provided them aid and comfort anyway. In fact I think recent history shows beyond a doubt that foot-dragging and avoidance are the true aid-and-comforters; they always, always, always make these things worse.

….Obama may want to keep Holder because he thinks he’s a fine attorney general, and if that’s the case, well, then I guess it’s the case. But if he thinks this scandal is bad and Holder’s response is lame, he should cut him loose, and the sooner the better. I dispute in the strongest possible terms the mentality that says, “But that would just be giving the GOP a scalp.” No. It would be showing the American people, most of whom don’t think in terms of scalps, that some things cross your own moral line. It invests you with character.

A couple of things leap immediately to mind. First, I suspect that Obama heartily approves of what the Justice Department did in the AP leak investigation. It’s probably a fantasy to believe that either Holder or DOJ were off the reservation here. Second, I suspect that the American public doesn’t view this as a scandal in the first place, so firing Holder wouldn’t do Obama any good. The public’s view of the press is pretty dim—television news in particular ranks right up there with banks and HMOs—and I’ll bet a sizeable majority actively approves of reining in those elitist media bellyachers who are constantly hiding behind the skirts of the First Amendment as they carelessly compromise national security by publishing leaks of terrorist investigations.

Needless to say, this isn’t my view. But the media is in a huge lather about the AP case because it affects the media, and I have a feeling that we journalist types are vastly overestimating how strongly the public is on our side over this. Sometime soon I imagine we’ll get a few polls with a few different question wordings that will give us some idea of where we stand. Just don’t be surprised if it turns out the public doesn’t think as highly of us as we ourselves do.

This article is from: 

Should President Obama Fire Eric Holder?

Posted in FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Should President Obama Fire Eric Holder?

VIDEO: 97 Percent of Climate Scientists Can’t Be Wrong

by Burt Bollman Posted on May 16, 2013

Mother Jones

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

Telling Americans that scientists don’t agree is the classic climate denial strategy. It’s been over a decade since consultant Frank Luntz famously furnished the GOP with strategies to kill climate action during the Bush years, recommending in a leaked memo PDF: “you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue.” Oh, yeah, and avoid truth: “A compelling story, even if factually inaccurate, can be more emotionally compelling than a dry recitation of the truth.” It seems to have worked: Only a minority of Americans believes global warming is caused by humans: 42 percent, according to a 2012 Pew study.

That “consensus gap”, as it’s known, has proven fertile ground in which to sow resistance to climate action, says John Cook, a climate communications researcher from the University of Queensland in Australia. He has led the most extensive survey of peer-reviewed literature in almost a decade (published online this week in Environmental Research Letters). And what he found, just as in other attempts to survey the field, is that scientists are near unanimous.

A group of 24 researchers signed up to the challenge via Cook’s website, Skeptical Science (the go-to website for debunking climate denial myths), and collected and analyzed almost 12,000 scientific papers from the past 20 years. Of the roughly 4,000 of those abstracts that expressed some view on the evidence for global warming, more than 97 percent endorsed the consensus that climate change is happening, and it’s caused by humans.

His team pulled work written by 29,083 authors in nearly 2,000 journals across two decades. “People who say there must be some conspiracy to keep climate deniers out of the peer reviewed literature, that is one hell of a conspiracy,” he said via Skype from Australia (watch the video above). That would make the moon landing cover-up look “like an amateur conspiracy compared to the scale involved here.”

Cook is hoping to capitalize on the simplicity of his findings: “All people need to understand is that 97 out of 100 climate scientists agree. All they need to know is that one number: 97 percent.”

Continue at source:  

VIDEO: 97 Percent of Climate Scientists Can’t Be Wrong

Posted in FF, GE, ONA, oven, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on VIDEO: 97 Percent of Climate Scientists Can’t Be Wrong

5 Things You Need to Know in the Inspector General’s IRS Tea Party Scandal Report

by JoanSanderz Posted on May 15, 2013

Mother Jones

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

On Tuesday evening, the Treasury Department released a long-awaited investigative report on why IRS staffers gave special scrutiny to the applications of thousands of right-leaning groups seeking tax-exempt nonprofit status. Treasury’s inspector general for tax administration conducted the probe from June 2012 to February 2013 in response to pressure from Congress, and the 54-page report sheds light on the whole debacle.

Here are five key takeaways from the report.

Continue Reading »

Follow this link:

5 Things You Need to Know in the Inspector General’s IRS Tea Party Scandal Report

Posted in FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on 5 Things You Need to Know in the Inspector General’s IRS Tea Party Scandal Report

Ex-IRS Director: Tea Party Groups Deserved Scrutiny, But IRS Bungled the Job

by olikellopas Posted on May 15, 2013

Mother Jones

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

Among those in attendance last Friday when IRS official Lois Lerner admitted that agency staffers had systematically singled out tea partiers and other conservative groups for special scrutiny was a lawyer named Marcus Owens. Lerner’s admission was shocking, and nobody realized that more than Owens. That’s because he served as director of the Exempt Organizations Division from 1990 to 2000, prior to Lerner holding the job.

More MoJo coverage of the IRS tea party scandal


The IRS Tea Party Scandal, Explained


IG Report Says IRS Has No Idea What Its Own Rules Mean


5 Things You Need to Know in the Inspector General’s IRS Tea Party Scandal Report


Did the Acting IRS Commissioner Mislead Congress?


Word of the Month for May: BOLO


Ex-IRS Director: Tea Party Groups Deserved Scrutiny, But IRS Bungled the Job

Owens, who has worked on tax law issues in private and public practice for almost 40 years, including 25 years at the IRS, says he has been getting a lot of calls about the scandal. The way he sees it, he told me in an interview on Tuesday, is that the IRS was right to take a close look at conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status during the 2010 and 2012 election cycles. Particularly in 2010, hundreds of new conservative groups were springing up across the country. “I think that it would be unreasonable to expect the IRS to ignore that, and to simply approve these 501(c)(4) applications from politically active organizations as if they were Scout troops or Little Leagues,” he said. “That doesn’t mean they should be denied exemption or that the evaluation should be overboard or overly intrusive, but there should be special evaluation.”

Continue Reading »

Taken from: 

Ex-IRS Director: Tea Party Groups Deserved Scrutiny, But IRS Bungled the Job

Posted in FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Ex-IRS Director: Tea Party Groups Deserved Scrutiny, But IRS Bungled the Job

Boehner and the Benghazi Emails: Been There, Done That?

by JoanSanderz Posted on May 13, 2013

Mother Jones

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

House Speaker John Boehner, according to Politico, is obsessed with Benghazi. And last week, after ABC News revealed the revised talking points crafted by the Obama administration following the September 11 attack that left four Americans dead, Boehner demanded that the administration release emails related to these talking points. “The truth shouldn’t be hidden from the American people behind a White House firewall,” Boehner declared. “Four Americans lost their lives in this terrorist attack. Congress will continue to investigate this issue, using all of the resources at our disposal.” But thanks, in part, to the Republicans, the truth isn’t being hidden. Boehner and his fellow Republicans had access to those emails—and used them for a public report they issued weeks ago that scooped the ABC News story.

In March, Boehner, according to a senior administration official, was invited to a White House-arranged briefing where the emails and other Benghazi-related material could be privately reviewed. Boehner did not attend; he sent staff, who attended with other House Republicans. Asked why Boehner did not participate in this session and why he did not at that time demand the release of the emails, Brendan Buck, his press secretary, says, “This is embarrassing pushback. Do you recall the report we put out in April? The committees were compiling information as part of their investigation and when the report was done, the committees requested the release of the emails.” In an April 23 letter, five GOP House committee chairs did ask the White House to turn over to their committees the documents it had allowed the GOPers to review.

Continue Reading »

From: 

Boehner and the Benghazi Emails: Been There, Done That?

Posted in FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Boehner and the Benghazi Emails: Been There, Done That?