Tag Archives: top stories

Here’s What’s in the Compromise Proposal on Background Checks for Gun Buyers

by w0ujpysd Posted on April 10, 2013

Mother Jones

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

On Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) gave senators leading bipartisan talks on a compromise amendment for expanding background checks on gun buyers an ultimatum: Figure it out by 5 p.m. That’s when Reid planned to file a motion to move to debate of his broader package of gun control legislation, which includes measures to improve school safety and crack down on gun traffickers.

Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W. Va.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) managed to strike a deal, and on Wednesday morning they held a press conference on Capitol Hill outlining their amendment, which Manchin said would be the first on the gun control bill when Reid introduces it for an initial vote on Thursday. (Sen. Chuck Schumer, the New York Democrat who introduced the background check provisions that cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee on a party-line vote, told reporters on Tuesday that although some details needed working out, he supported the Manchin-Toomey compromise.) The amendment would require background checks on all gun sales in person and over the internet with the exception of transfers between “friends and neighbors.” It’s unclear how broad that exception will be in practice, but the Washington Post reported that the background check requirement “would not cover private transactions between individuals, unless there was advertising or an online service involved.” Private dealers would be required to keep records of gun sales, as licensed dealers have already been doing since 1968. Gun sellers who allow prohibited people to buy firearms would face a felony charge.

Immediate reactions from gun control groups working with lawmakers on the Hill were mixed. “We like the compromise very much,” Mark Glaze, director of Michael Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns, told Mother Jones. Ladd Everitt, a spokesman for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, struck a more cautious tone. “We’re still waiting to hear the language of the bill,” he said, explaining that his group wanted more details on how record-keeping would work, and if gun transactions by, for example, people standing just outside gun shows would require checks. But Everitt commended Manchin and Toomey for standing their ground against pushback from staunch proponents of gun rights.

At the press conference, Manchin and Toomey, who both own guns, touted their support for the Second Amendment. “I don’t consider criminal background checks to be gun control. It’s common sense.” Toomey said. “The mentally ill should not have guns. I don’t know anyone who disagrees with that premise.”

When asked if he worried that his support for expanded background checks would cost him his A rating with the NRA, Toomey replied, “What matters to me is doing the right thing.” (Mayors Against Illegal Guns is releasing scorecards of its own to grade lawmakers on guns.)

The National Rifle Association, with which Manchin said he and Toomey have been in contact, stepped away from its opposition to expanded background checks, calling the compromise “a positive development.” However, the NRA said, “no background check would have prevented the tragedies in Newtown, Aurora, or Tucson.”

Manchin also said he and Toomey “agreed that we need a commission on mass violence” with experts on mental illness, school safety, and “video violence.”

If expanded background checks are able to dodge a Senate filibuster with the help of Republicans who want to see a vote, the next challenge will be in the House, where Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has the power to block the bill from getting a vote. Toomey said there are a “substantial number of House Republicans who are supportive of this general compromise approach.” (Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), one of the House’s leading gun-control advocates, told Mother Jones last week that the gun violence task force she sits on has been in talks with Republicans, but declined to name names.)

View post:  

Here’s What’s in the Compromise Proposal on Background Checks for Gun Buyers

Posted in FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Here’s What’s in the Compromise Proposal on Background Checks for Gun Buyers

Did Mitch McConnell Use Senate Employees for Oppo Research on Ashley Judd?

by pwdt8w4 Posted on April 9, 2013

Mother Jones

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

A secret recording of Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and aides discussing in February how they might attack actor/activist Ashley Judd, then a potential 2014 challenger to McConnell, attracted widespread attention after Mother Jones published it Tuesday morning. Much of the news coverage focused on the McConnell team’s comments about Judd’s religious views and her mental-health history. But the tape might raise ethics questions for McConnell and his staff.

Senate ethics rules prohibit Senate employees from participating in political activities while on government time. But the tape indicates that several of McConnell’s legislative aides, whose salaries are paid by the taxpayer, were involved with producing the oppo research on Judd that was discussed at the February 2 meeting.

More Mother Jones coverage of Mitch McConnell and the 2014 Kentucky Senate race.


Secret Tape: McConnell and Aides Weighed Using Judd’s Mental Health and Religion as Political Ammo


Did Mitch McConnell Use Senate Employees for Oppo Research on Ashley Judd?


McConnell Asks FBI to Investigate Secret Tapeâ&#128;&#148;Then Fundraises Off It


Watch: McConnell Says “Political Left Bugged My Headquarters”


Full Transcript and Audio of Mitch McConnell Campaign’s Meeting on Ashley Judd


Mitch McConnell Will Fundraise With Billionaires After Saying the GOP Is Not The Party of Billionaires


Mitch McConnell vs. the World


Yes, Potential Senate Candidate Ashley Judd Has Gotten Naked on Screen. So Have These Political Figures.


CPAC: Where Ashley Judd Rape Jokes Happen

Here’s the relevant section of the transcript:

Presenter: So I’ll just preface my comments that this reflects the work of a lot of folks: Josh, Jesse, Phil Maxson, a lot of LAs, thank them three times, so this is a compilation of work, all the way through. The first person we’ll focus on, Ashley Judd—basically I refer to her as sort of the oppo research situation where there’s a haystack of needles, just because truly, there’s such a wealth of material. Laughter.

Ah, you know Jesse slogged through her autobiography. She has innumerable video interviews, tweets, blog posts, articles, magazine articles.

The presenter was explaining that the opposition research on Judd was compiled by several people. “LAs” is congressional parlance for legislative assistants; one of the legislative assistants, Phil Maxson, gets his own shout-out. The question is whether Maxson and the other McConnell LAs were digging up material on Judd while on government time. If they were engaged in this research while on annual leave or vacation—or working outside Senate hours—they wouldn’t be violating Senate rules. But if this was done on Senate time, McConnell could have a problem. Here’s how Tara Malloy, an expert on ethics rules at the Campaign Legal Center, described the issue in an email:

Any assessment under the Ethics rules would require some more facts—most particularly whether any official resources were used in connection to the conversation or oppo research, and/or whether the conversation or other activities took place on government property. In general, however, the ethics rules do not bar staffers from engaging in campaign activity provided they do it on their own time and do not involve government resources or property.

Here is the relevant excerpt from the Senate Ethics Manual:

As discussed more fully below, Senate Rule 41 prohibits Senate staff, with the exception of specified “political fund designees,” from handling federal campaign funds. Subject to that restriction, however, and as long as they do not neglect their official duties, Senate employees are free to engage in campaign activities on their own time, as volunteers or for pay, provided they do not do so in congressional offices or otherwise use official resources. An employee’s “own time” includes time beyond regular working hours, any accrued annual leave, or non-government hours of a part-time employee. Staff may not be required to do political work as a condition of Senate employment. Just as Senate employees are free to campaign for their employing Members on their own time, they may also use their free time or, with the permission of their employing Members, reduce their Senate hours (with a commensurate reduction in pay) to campaign for presidential candidates, other federal candidates, or state or local aspirants. With respect to the question of leave time to perform campaign activities, it is the Committee’s understanding that the Senate does not recognize a “leave of absence.”

We asked Jesse Benton, McConnell’s campaign manager; Allison Moore, a spokeswoman for his Senate office; and Phil Maxson, the LA named on the tape, to explain whether the oppo work was done on Senate time, but they did not respond.

Guy Cecil, the executive director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, which is working to defeat McConnell, sent out a series of tweets on Tuesday noting this issue:

Excerpt from: 

Did Mitch McConnell Use Senate Employees for Oppo Research on Ashley Judd?

Posted in ATTRA, FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Did Mitch McConnell Use Senate Employees for Oppo Research on Ashley Judd?

Watch: McConnell Says "Political Left Bugged My Headquarters"

by m4nhrt Posted on April 9, 2013

Mother Jones

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

On Tuesday, Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell declined to respond to questions from reporters about his campaign’s plans for attacking Ashley Judd, as revealed in a report by MoJo‘s David Corn. Instead McConnell simply repeated accusations about a wiretapping conspiracy. Via the Washington Post, watch:

It was “quite a Nixonian move,” a deadpan McConnell said. “This is what you get from the political left in America these days.”

As we reported on Tuesday, Mother Jones was not involved in the making of the tape; after obtaining it, we published a story on its contents due to their obvious newsworthiness. It is our understanding that the tape was not the product of a Watergate-style bugging operation. Read the full report here.

H/t Washington Post for the video clip.

See the article here:  

Watch: McConnell Says "Political Left Bugged My Headquarters"

Posted in FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Watch: McConnell Says "Political Left Bugged My Headquarters"

The Latest Bird Flu Freakout, Explained

by Unacoomt Posted on April 9, 2013

Mother Jones

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

Just as dead pigs and ducks stopped washing up in rivers in China, another public health threat crops up: Chinese media announced that a strain of bird flu never before seen in humans was found in Shanghai and surrounding provinces, infecting 24 people so far in China and killing seven of them.

For the most part, flu outbreaks like this pop up then fade within weeks. But every once in a while, they become pandemics, spreading across the world and infecting people with a deadly flu. What will happen with H7N9 is unclear, but there are a few things worth knowing about its mysterious origins, and how people in China are reacting.

Where did it come from?

Unclear. The first two victims died in late February, but the Chinese state media didn’t announce the deaths or that they had detected the new virus until Sunday, March 31st. So far, it looks like all the victims contracted the flu directly from a sick bird, not another person. That’s an important distinction because a flu that humans contract from each other can spread much faster than a flu that people contract directly from animals. (A Chinese blogger has put together a map of the cases.)

The Chinese government has traced some cases back to live pigeons that were being sold in a market in Shanghai. On April 4th, Chinese state media confirmed that it had found cases of bird flu in those pigeons, and last Thursday night the government began a mass-slaughter of poultry there.

Continue Reading »

Source:

The Latest Bird Flu Freakout, Explained

Posted in FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Latest Bird Flu Freakout, Explained

"You’ve Got To Pick Yourself Up and Go Forward."

by jex34c67 Posted on April 9, 2013

Mother Jones

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

On December 7, 1993, a disturbed man boarded a Long Island Rail Road train carrying a handgun with a 15-round magazine and a canvas bag full of ammunition. He coolly gunned down six people and wounded 19 others before passengers subdued him. Among the dead was Dennis McCarthy, the husband of future Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.). He was on his evening commute back to Mineola with the couple’s son, Kevin.

Another of the gunman’s bullets tore through Kevin’s brain. In a Manhasset hospital, doctors gave him a 10 percent chance of survival. He beat the odds, and in 2012 he told the New York Times that despite the brain trauma that still affects his daily life, he’s been able to move on: “Get married. Live life. Have two kids.”

But almost two decades ago, as her son began his arduous recovery, Carolyn McCarthy had suddenly found herself in the regular eye of the media. She embraced the attention, becoming an important voice for gun control. In 1996 she coasted into Congress and quickly established a reputation as the “doyenne of anti-gun advocates in the House.” McCarthy has since sponsored a range of gun legislation, including a bill to improve the National Instant Criminal Background Check System NICS that passed with the blessing of the National Rifle Association, and multiple attempts to ban assault weapons and guns with magazines of more than 10 rounds—her current legislative focus.

McCarthy now serves as a vice chair of the House’s newly assembled gun violence task force. She spoke with Mother Jones last week before Congress reconvened to once again take up the divisive task of reforming America’s gun laws.

Mother Jones: You recently described your efforts against gun violence as a “very lonely battle for many, many years.” After the Long Island Rail Road shooting, there have been dozens more like it. What goes through your mind when you hear news of another?

Carolyn McCarthy: I first got to Congress, obviously, to try to get involved with reducing gun violence because of what happened to my family, and learned over the course of time that these kind of killings and daily shootings were destroying so many families. Each time there was another mass killing there would usually be a very short period of concentration on it. You would see that the papers and TV would pick the story up and if it lasted more than 10 days of coverage that would be considered a lot.

And then Virginia Tech happened. I noticed that everybody was shocked when we found out that shooter Seung-Hui Cho had been adjudicated mentally ill. That’s when we passed the NICS bill that I had worked with the NRA on; we knew we could get it onto the floor for a vote.

MJ: During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s (D-Calif.) assault weapons ban, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) said that Newtown had “changed America.” What’s different about this shooting that has kept it in the news for so long?

CM: You have to remember, we had Aurora, the shooting at the temple, we had a number of other shootings leading up to Newtown. But Newtown, I think, struck a chord with everybody. Having innocent children, and anybody with an imagination trying to visualize when you’re talking about a child being shot seven to 11 times, that went way over the line. People started thinking, Wait a minute, this is happening in our schools now? And when you think about the large magazines, which is something I’ve been fighting for a ban on because that is what was used in the shooting on the Long Island Rail Road, why do we need large magazines? Why? I understand sportsmen use it when they go to the shooting clubs. Hunters certainly don’t use it.

MJ: In the Senate, NRA member Joe Manchin (D-W. Va.) has reportedly been negotiating with Republicans to reach a compromise on expanded background checks. Is the NRA is more willing to negotiate behind the scenes than it will publicly admit?

CM: No, I don’t think they are willing to negotiate behind the scenes. The statements that have come out from the leadership of the NRA have made that very clear, and the message they keep sending out is, it’s infringing on 2nd Amendment rights. Which is not true; anybody with common sense can understand that.

When we met with them in the beginning with our task force, they seemed to be interested in working on background checks with us. But then 10 days later LaPierre came out and said absolutely not.

They’re afraid to give one inch. The NRA is basically afraid of the other fringe groups—Gun Owners of America and one or two of the others—where they feel everybody should have the right to own a gun. Which they do. Everybody keeps forgetting that. The Supreme Court made it very clear that people do have a right to own a gun, but they also said that the municipalities and the cities and the government have a right to protect their people.

MJ: Gun advocates argue that handguns are responsible for the majority of gun violence and that mass shootings are statistically rare, overcovered, and sensationalized in the media. Do they have a point that measures like a ban on assault weapons are misguided?

CM: No, they don’t. I’m talking as a victim now. We don’t want to be a number. Each one of those people who was killed leaves a family, leaves a community in shock.

I can speak for other victims of gun violence: It brings them back to that one moment when they learned that someone in their family was either killed or severely wounded. I think that’s the hardest part of this job, because it brings you back.

And those are memories—you get on with your lives, and we do. It’s very, very painful, and we know what these families are going to go through. It hits at our heart and our mind, and also takes another little piece away from ourselves.

MJ: How were your House colleagues affected by the Tucson shooting that wounded Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Az.)? Did it make any of them more sympathetic to gun control?

CM: A couple of members have certainly come up to me after Gabby and after Aurora and, because it happened in their backyards, they were more sympathetic to what we were trying to do, and have begun working with us. So they are becoming more aware, and I think most Americans are becoming more and more aware. When you’re talking about how more than 3,000 people have died since Newtown, people are going, Wait a minute, why are we doing this?

Gabby has become more public with her daily struggle with life. Everyone who knew Gabby before the shooting, how outgoing she was, how energetic she was—she was just an absolutely lovely person. And she still is. But to see her struggle… How long does it take her to get dressed? How long does it take her to do something that would have taken only seconds to do? People don’t hone in on the leftover residue of that kind of a shooting.

MJ: Last July, you told the Daily Beast, “People used to say these killings take place only in the inner cities—that’s not true—it’s like a cancer, and it goes out everywhere.” But do we too conveniently ignore gun violence that doesn’t shock the sensibilities of relatively affluent, white Americans?

CM: It’s true. The daily killings that we see that add up to quite a large amount are basically in the urban settings. In the suburban areas people think they don’t have that issue.

It’s the easy access to these particular guns that is the problem. Anybody can get them. I’ve talked to young people: “How long if you wanted to go out and get a gun, how long would it take?” And they said, 15, 20 minutes. Everybody knows where you can buy a gun illegally, and that’s why even with New York and other states that have good laws, the guns are coming from out of state. That’s why you need to have federal legislation.

MJ: What do you make of this new concept of using 3D printers to make gun parts?

CM: A lot of people are concerned about that. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.) introduced legislation last year on that. Not only can they do guns, but they could probably do other things that could be a danger to the general population. Both sides are looking at that.

But technology—that’s something else I don’t understand about the NRA. They started off being a gun safety group, and yet with the technology that’s out there, we’re going to see improvements in gun safety. And yet they’re against that. They don’t want the information coming out of the CDC.

Speaking as a nurse, people forget that information on how to save lives from car accidents, from motorcycle head injuries, a lot of that information that came out from studies from the CDC . We can make sure that we don’t see as many suicides, we can see the effects of laws on domestic violence or an order of protection, when there’s a cooling off period where you can’t buy a gun.

MJ: You must be encouraged by Obama’s executive action on the CDC, then.

CM: I think the CDC has the right to look into gun violence. It’s not judging anybody, it’s just saying, This is the way that we could save lives, this is the way we can prevent more injuries from happening. Why is the Tiahrt Amendment so important? Why are you trying to stop our police officers from stopping crime? If they’re so protective of our police force, why do they stop them at every turn?

I’ll never understand the stances that they take. If anything, because of the NRA we saw higher incidences of violence in our country.

MJ: With groups like Michael Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns, do you see a counter NRA forming?

CM: Oh yes, I definitely do. I had said that many years ago when Mayor Bloomberg first started getting involved in the gun issue. He’s taken this issue very, very personally, mainly because he was the person who had to go to the hospital if a police officer was shot or killed. He had to go to the funerals, he had to go visit the parents of the young child who was murdered on the streets of his city.

All these gun groups are all on the same page. We’ve never been able to do that before. That’s the one thing we were always lacking. We didn’t have the money to counteract the NRA. Now we do.

MJ: If enough Republicans see that their constituents are overwhelmingly supportive of background checks, will they press for a vote because they feel not acting would cost them elections?

CM: They’ve got to vote. But I do not believe there is as much risk as they might think. I have always felt that the NRA was not as strong as most people gave them credit for. Yes, they’re powerful. No one should ever take them for granted. But I also believe that they have this myth about them that they can take down any member of Congress.

MJ: Why have so many politicians bought into that myth?

CM: The NRA has won some elections. But I never understood, even on the Democratic side, why they would bow to the NRA when it still was not there with them. There was one member from a very conservative state, he voted with me on a gun bill many years ago. It was a rough year for him, but he went out and explained why he voted for it—it was the right thing to do, he had been a former sheriff—and he won his election easily.

MJ: At what point would gun enthusiasts’ paranoia about a government gun grab become a legitimate complaint?

CM: This is their sport. I used to go skeet shooting. I just didn’t like it. Some people don’t like skiing; I was a great skier. It’s their sport, I respect their sport. They’re law-abiding citizens. It’s the ones who don’t care about the laws, don’t follow the laws, and don’t go for the background checks we need to worry about, and we make it too easy for them to buy guns.

But this paranoia out there, that the government is going to come over and knock at your door and take away your guns, that is purely the NRA’s tactic of fear. There are people who believe that, but they also believe in machine guns, which are banned, and making bombs to be prepared to fight the government.

MJ: After Virginia Tech, you were interviewed on MSNBC by Tucker Carlson, who hounded you about the definition of a barrel shroud.

CM: It was late at night, I was tired, I knew I would make mistakes. We were talking about the NICS bill and all of a sudden he threw that out at me.

But you know what? It doesn’t matter. I don’t have to know every little thing about a gun. All I know is that the kind of guns that—and banning the large magazines that we’re trying to do on gun safety can save lives.

MJ: When did you first start feeling less lonely on this issue?

CM: I think it was after Virginia Tech. After Virginia Tech I wasn’t recovering as fast. The killings would keep going on in my mind more and more. Talking to other victims who have been in this battle for a long, long time—we had a hearing and I walked in and saw people whom I hadn’t seen in 15, 16 years, and we would just look at each other and break down crying. It’s very difficult, because you’re fighting for something you believe in. To see it continue, it breaks your heart. It just breaks your heart.

MJ: What gives you peace of mind after something like that?

CM: I worked as an ICU nurse, and if the patient didn’t survive it would be almost like the same feeling. Was there more that I could have done? Was there anything different that could have been done? But you go over it, over it, over it, and you know that there wasn’t anything else you could have done. Believe me, you wanted to stay home and get underneath that comforter and probably not face the world. There’s nothing wrong with that. But you’ve got to pick yourself up and go forward.

Visit link – 

"You’ve Got To Pick Yourself Up and Go Forward."

Posted in Citizen, FF, GE, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on "You’ve Got To Pick Yourself Up and Go Forward."

Washington’s Vanishing Lobbyists Hide Behind the Rules

by Ha Zega Posted on April 9, 2013

Mother Jones

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

When President Obama took office in 2008, he promised to curb the influence of special interests. Yet his new lobbying rules and a Bush-era law passed in the wake of the Jack Abramoff scandal appear to have done little to curb lobbying—and may have created new loopholes for influence peddling. Even as the number of lobbyists has decreased, spending on lobbying has gone up, which experts attribute to a growing number of lobbyists operating under the radar.

A recent report by the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) found that there were close to 15,000 officially registered lobbyists in 2007; by last year that number had dropped to slightly more than 12,000. In 2007, total spending on lobbying approached $3 billion, and by 2012 it had jumped to around $3.3 billion. “An amazing amount of money continues to go up, even as the number of people lobbying goes down,” says James Thurber, a professor of government at American University who has served on the American Bar Association’s lobbying reform task force. (The report attributed a small decline in lobbying spending in the past two years to a number of factors, including the economy.)

What’s happening here? Monte Ward, the president of the American League of Lobbyists (ALA), estimates that lots of folks are still lobbying; they’re just not telling the government. “With all the restrictions the administration has placed on lobbyists, I think some have decided it’s not worth registering,” he says, adding that they’re doing the same job, but just “getting in under the radar.” Tim LaPira, a political science professor at James Madison University who focuses on lobbying law, says the well-intentioned Bush and Obama policies “actually created a gross disincentive to want to be open and public about what it is you’re doing.”

Reform advocates say lobbyists are weaseling around the definition of lobbying activities. The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 states that if influence peddlers spend less than 20 percent of their time lobbying on the Hill (or in “preparation”), they don’t have to register as lobbyists. LaPira says this is “silly”: “Most doctors I know don’t spend 20 percent of their working hours in the operating room, but that doesn’t mean they’re not surgeons.” William Luneburg, a professor at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law who coauthored the American Bar Association’s lobbying manual, agrees. “You can do a hell of a lot of lobbying for somebody when you’re only doing 19 percent of your time for the client,” he says.

A good example of the less-than-20-percent lobbyist is former Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.), who, after nearly 20 years in the House and Senate, went on to serve as a “special policy adviser” to the law firm Alston & Bird. The firm doubled its lobbying income during Daschle’s first year there. Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich made hundreds of thousands of dollars not lobbying for Freddie Mac, claiming he was paid $300,000 a year to be a “historian.”

Some lobbyists slide under the threshold by changing how they “interpret” their job duties, says LaPira: “There’s no way of knowing exactly how many minutes of the day any one lobbyist spent on any one thing.” Likely due to these slippery tactics, the CRP report says, almost half of lobbyists who were active in 2011 but not 2012 are still working for the same employer. Of those who changed firms, more than a third moved to employers in similar industries.

“In all likelihood, there are many, many, many, more people in Washington doing policy advocacy, broadly defined, than people doing actual lobbying,” LaPira says. Thurber, who helped Obama craft his lobbying rules, has advocated a more inclusive definition of lobbying, which would lump in folks in the advertising and PR industries, as well as grassroots activists, coalition builders, and think tanks that do advocacy. That would total some 100,000 people, he says. He adds that a more accurate number for the amount spent on lobbying could be up to “three times each year’s reported expenditures.”

Some lobbyists argue that the recent restrictions on them are unwarranted. Wayne Weidie, a senior governmental affairs adviser at the lobbying firm Adams & Reese, told the CRP, “I think some of the restrictions post-Abramoff were just overkill. Congress was just protecting itself from itself. Nobody buys anyone’s soul with a glass of iced tea.” ALA president Ward disagrees. He says he wants “an open and transparent process,” and notes that his organization backs several lobbying reforms, including lowering the 20 percent threshold, getting rid of various exemptions, and requiring ethics training for lobbyists.

Absent these kinds of fixes, the public doesn’t really know what forces are shaping the policies that affect them, says LaPira. “The public should have a right to know who’s working to advocate for their own interest and for interests that they…may not agree with.” Right now, he says, “We don’t really know what’s happening.”

Link to original – 

Washington’s Vanishing Lobbyists Hide Behind the Rules

Posted in FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Washington’s Vanishing Lobbyists Hide Behind the Rules

Secret Tape: McConnell and Aides Weighed Using Judd’s Mental Health and Religion as Political Ammo

by Selina R. Pinkstaff Posted on April 9, 2013

Mother Jones

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

More Mother Jones coverage of Mitch McConnell and the 2014 Kentucky Senate race.


Secret Tape: McConnell and Aides Weighed Using Judd’s Mental Health and Religion as Political Ammo


Full Transcript and Audio of Mitch McConnell Campaign’s Meeting on Ashley Judd


Mitch McConnell Will Fundraise With Billionaires After Saying the GOP Is Not The Party of Billionaires


Mitch McConnell vs. the World


Yes, Potential Senate Candidate Ashley Judd Has Gotten Naked on Screen. So Have These Political Figures.


CPAC: Where Ashley Judd Rape Jokes Happen


Ashley Judd: I’m Not Running

On February 2, Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader in the US Senate, opened up his 2014 reelection campaign headquarters in Louisville, Kentucky, and in front of several dozen supporters vowed to “point out” the weaknesses of any opponent fielded by the Democrats. “They want to fight? We’re ready,” he declared. McConnell was serious: Later that day, he was huddling with aides in a private meeting to discuss how to attack his possible Democratic foes, including actor/activist Ashley Judd, who was then contemplating challenging the minority leader. During this strategy session—a recording of which was obtained by Mother Jones—McConnell and his aides considered assaulting Judd for her past struggles with depression and for her religious views.

Last month, Judd announced she wouldn’t challenge McConnell, whose reelection campaign could become one of the most watched races of the 2014 cycle (if a serious Democratic opponent emerges). But at the February 2 meeting, McConnell and his team were fixated on Judd. McConnell told his aides that at the early stage of the campaign they had to clobber any potential challenger:

I assume most of you have played the, the game Whac-A-Mole?” (Laughter.) This is the Whac-A-Mole period of the campaign…when anybody sticks their head up, do them out.

Continue Reading »

Read this article:

Secret Tape: McConnell and Aides Weighed Using Judd’s Mental Health and Religion as Political Ammo

Posted in FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Secret Tape: McConnell and Aides Weighed Using Judd’s Mental Health and Religion as Political Ammo

Full Transcript and Audio of Mitch McConnell Campaign’s Meeting on Ashley Judd

by Julie Plunkett Posted on April 9, 2013

Mother Jones

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

More Mother Jones coverage of Mitch McConnell and the 2014 Kentucky Senate race.


Secret Tape: McConnell and Aides Weighed Using Judd’s Mental Health and Religion as Political Ammo


Full Transcript and Audio of Mitch McConnell Campaign’s Meeting on Ashley Judd


Mitch McConnell Will Fundraise With Billionaires After Saying the GOP Is Not The Party of Billionaires


Mitch McConnell vs. the World


Yes, Potential Senate Candidate Ashley Judd Has Gotten Naked on Screen. So Have These Political Figures.


CPAC: Where Ashley Judd Rape Jokes Happen


Ashley Judd: I’m Not Running

On February 2, Sen. Mitch McConnell, the Senate GOP leader facing reelection next year, held a private meeting at his Louisville, Kentucky, campaign headquarters with several aides to discuss opposition research collected on his potential challengers and how best to defeat possible foes. Much of the conversation focused on actor/activist Ashley Judd, who at the time was the most prominent of McConnell’s potential Democratic opponents, and McConnell and his aides considered assailing Judd for her past struggles with depression and for her religious views. (Judd has since announced she will not run against McConnell.) Mother Jones has obtained a recording of the meeting. Here is the article based on the recording. Below is a complete transcript of the recording.

Sen. Mitch McConnell: If I could interject…I assume most of you have played the, the game Whac-A-Mole? Laughter. This is the Whac-A-Mole period of the campaign…when anybody sticks their head up, do them out, and we’re even planning to do it with the Courier here shortly, so…

Female voice: We’re anxious for that. Laughter.

Continue Reading »

Jump to original: 

Full Transcript and Audio of Mitch McConnell Campaign’s Meeting on Ashley Judd

Posted in FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Full Transcript and Audio of Mitch McConnell Campaign’s Meeting on Ashley Judd

5 Ways Biotech Is Changing Our Pets and Wildlife

by Hadwin Partize Posted on April 8, 2013

Mother Jones

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

Ever since humans first tamed a friendly wolf, we’ve been shaping animals to conform to our needs and wants. Just look at a Siberian husky next to a poofy, orange Pomeranian. Science journalist Emily Anthes’ new book, Frankenstein’s Cat, explores animals created by molecular genetics or wired up to electronics, but, she says, the ethical questions that come along with these futuristic critters are not completely new.

Anthes considers herself an animal lover— she shares her author photo with her pooch, Milo—and the book works through her thoughts on animal welfare and science.

From pretty glow-in-the-dark pet fish to goats that make anti-diarrhea milk, biotech animals cover an incredibly broad range. “Biotechnology sometimes get talked about as if it’s this monolithic entity that only has one meaning, like all genetic engineering is ethically the same,” she says, “We really need to start looking at individual cases and applications and highlight them.” So Anthes and I talked about some animals that may soon be found (and in some cases are already found) in pet shops, grocery stores, and research labs near you.

Continue Reading »

Visit source: 

5 Ways Biotech Is Changing Our Pets and Wildlife

Posted in alo, FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on 5 Ways Biotech Is Changing Our Pets and Wildlife

How Walmart, ExxonMobil, and Coke Buy Latino Friends in Congress

by ggkk2121333 Posted on April 8, 2013

Mother Jones

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

In late February, some 70 guests arrived for dinner at a hotel near Washington, DC’s Union Station. Nine members of Congress were there, including Reps. Rubén Hinojosa (D-Tex.), Raul Ruiz (D-Calif.), and Gloria Negrete McLeod (D-Calif.), as was former Labor Secretary Hilda Solis. Also in attendance were lobbyists and executives for Fortune 500 companies and big industry trade groups. Lonnie Johnson, a lobbyist for ExxonMobil, sat next to Hinojosa at dinner; Walmart lobbyist Ivan Zapien gave the closing remarks. Exxon, American Gas Association, Darden Restaurants, and Coca-Cola had underwritten the event. That was how, seven weeks into the 113th Congress, as lawmakers began work on immigration reform and a tax code overhaul, powerful corporate lobbyists scored premium access to politicians.

The dinner was organized by the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute (CHCI), an obscure offshoot of the 27-member, all-Democratic Congressional Hispanic Caucus. (Caucuses are factions of lawmakers formed around an issue or ideology, such as the Progressive Caucus, the Black Caucus, and the Tea Party Caucus.) The CHCI, founded in 1978 by a small group of Hispanic lawmakers, says its mission is to “develop the next generation of Latino leaders” by underwriting scholarships and fellowship programs for young Latinos, funding college readiness courses for them, and placing them in jobs and internships on Capitol Hill. But like other nonprofits nominally affiliated with congressional caucuses, CHCI sells access to influential lawmakers in exchange for big donations.

Continue Reading »

See the original post:

How Walmart, ExxonMobil, and Coke Buy Latino Friends in Congress

Posted in FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How Walmart, ExxonMobil, and Coke Buy Latino Friends in Congress