!! History Commons Alert, Exciting News
Profile: Barack Obama
a.k.a. Barack Hussein Obama, Barack H. Obama
Positions that Barack Obama has held:
Barack Obama was a participant or observer in the following events:
President Obama signs a controversial bill passed by Congress (see December 15, 2011), which gives the president power to order indefinite military detention for anyone deemed an enemy combatant, including US citizens arrested or captured in the United States. Obama had threatened to veto the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) on a number of occasions, but once certain restrictions on presidential authority were removed, he became willing to sign it. For instance, the original version of the bill required that persons covered by the bill be held prisoner by the military and prosecuted by military tribunals, if at all. Obama was of the view that by requiring military detention, Congress was intruding on areas under the purview of the executive branch, and in ways that would impede the ability of the executive branch to effectively gather intelligence, fight terrorism, and protect national security. He also believed the bill was unnecessary and potentially risky in order to codify detention authority, and that the president already had authority, via the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) and subsequent court rulings, to unilaterally designate persons, including US citizens, as enemy combatants and subject them to indefinite military detention without trial. [White House, 12/31/2011; Salon, 12/15/2012] For the same reasons, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, CIA Director David Petraeus, FBI Director Robert Mueller, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, White House Advisor for Counterterrorism John Brennan, and DOJ National Security Division head Lisa Monaco were also opposed to the mandatory military detention provisions. [ACLU, 12/7/2011] Also, according to Senator Carl Levin (D-MI), a sponsor of the NDAA, “[L]anguage which precluded the application of section 1031 [1021 in the final bill] to American citizens was in the bill we originally approved in the Armed Services Committee, and the administration asked us to remove the language which says that US citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section.” [Senate, 11/17/2011] With the bill drafted so that military detention was optional, and an option US citizens were subject to (see December 15, 2011), Obama signaled he would sign it, despite having concerns that it was still unduly restrictive of executive authority, and it unnecessarily codified authority that had been exercised for 10 years and had been upheld by a number of lower court decisions. [White House, 12/17/2011 ] However, in a non-binding signing statement attached to the bill, Obama says he is signing the bill “despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists.” Obama does not specify what his reservations are, but promises: “[M]y administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation.” [White House, 12/31/2011]
Controversy over Indefinite Detention Provisions - Though 86 percent of US senators and almost two-thirds of the House of Representatives voted to pass the NDAA (see December 15, 2011), and the bill is signed by Obama, the military detention measures are opposed by a number of constitutional experts and public interest organizations, and a significant percentage of the general public (see December 22-26, 2011).
Entity Tags: James R. Clapper Jr., Carl Levin, Barack Obama, Central Intelligence Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation, US Department of Justice, US Department of Defense, Leon Panetta, Robert S. Mueller III, John O. Brennan, David Petraeus, Lisa Monaco
Timeline Tags: Civil Liberties
More than a dozen state and local government bodies pass or begin debate on laws or resolutions condemning provisions for indefinite military detention in a recently passed federal law, or limiting cooperation with the federal government on enforcement of the controversial section of the law. The law is the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), an annual defense spending bill, and the controversial sections are 1021 and 1022, which codify indefinite military detention, without charge or trial, of anyone accused of supporting groups hostile to the United States, including US citizens and including persons arrested in the United States (see December 15, 2011). President Obama signed the bill into law on December 31, 2011 (see December 31, 2011). The bill began generating controversy six months earlier, after the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) highlighted the indefinite military detention provisions (see July 6, 2011 and after). [Tenth Amendment Center, 12/31/2011; People's Campaign for the Constitution, 12/31/2011]
Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum (R-PA), enjoying a surge of popularity among Iowa caucus voters, calls President Obama “the most divisive president” in US history. On NBC’s Meet the Press, he says: “Well, you, you have to have someone you can work with, and this president has done more to divide than any other president that I’ve ever witnessed in my lifetime. This president goes out and gives speech after speech after speech trying to divide America between class, between income group, between racial and ethnic groups.… This is, this is the great divider in chief. And it’s very difficult when you’re being lampooned by the president on a regular basis, not just as a party but individually, to then—and the president, who I don’t believe has met with [House Speaker John] Boehner [R-OH] or any of the Republican leadership in now six months, hard to compromise and work with someone who won’t meet with you, who won’t sit down and try to, try to negotiate things and try to talk. And so I’m not, I’m not surprised at all the Republicans are having a difficult time with someone who has no interest.” Obama is trying to instigate class warfare among Americans to win re-election in 2012, he says: “Rich versus poor. It is classic class warfare. It’s dividing. It’s a very divisive message.” NewsOne’s report on Santorum’s statement says that Santorum provides no evidence to back up his claims, and says he ignores “the countless examples of White House outreach to Republicans in Congress over the past… three years.” [NewsOne, 1/2/2012]
Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus sharply criticizes the actions of so-called “super PACs.” Super PACs are political organizations that exist to influence elections, which take unlimited amounts of outside money from donors, including individuals, unions, and corporations, and pool that money to advocate for or against a candidate (see March 26, 2010). By law, super PACs are supposed to operate independently of a candidate’s official campaign organization. A mere 12 donors, including several corporations, one union, and a number of billionaires, made up over half of the donations given to super PACs in the first half of 2011, and Republican super PACs have outraised Democratic super PACs by more than a 2-1 margin (see August 4, 2011). Marcus writes that the presidential election is already devolving into an affair “without meaningful contribution limits or timely disclosure, outsourced to political action committees whose spending often dwarfs that of the candidates they support.” The PACs and super PACs rarely obey the law and operate independently of the candidates they support. The Republican primary season demonstrates just how powerful they are: the super PAC supporting presidential candidate Mitt Romney (R-MA), “Restore Our Future,” has spent $4 million attacking Republican candidate Newt Gingrich (R-GA). The veneer of independence for Restore Our Future is thin: it is run by former Romney political director Carl Forti, its treasurer Charles Spies was Romney’s general counsel, its head fundraiser Steve Roche used to head the Romney 2012 finance team, and Romney has spoken at Restore Our Future events (see June 23, 2011). However, Marcus notes, “up-to-date information about who is bankrolling this effort will not be available until the end of January, by which point four states will have voted and Romney may have the nomination wrapped up.” Restore Our Future was last required to report its donors to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) in July 2011, when it reported raising $12 million. Gingrich’s own super PAC, “Winning Our Future,” is primarily funded by billionaire casino owner Sheldon Adelson, and their fellow Republican candidate Governor Rick Perry (R-TX) has the super PAC “Make Us Great Again.” Long-shot Republican candidate Jon Huntsman’s super PAC, “Our Destiny,” is reportedly funded primarily by Huntsman’s wealthy father. And President Obama’s super PAC, “Priorities USA Action,” has launched anti-Romney ads. Marcus writes, “The rise of these groups erodes the twin pillars of a functional campaign finance system: limits on the size of contributions and timely information about who is writing the checks.” Her concerns are echoed by veteran campaign finance reformer Fred Wertheimer, who recently said: “The establishment of the candidate-specific super PAC is a vehicle to completely destroy candidate contribution limits. It is a vehicle that will spread to Congress and it will lead us back to a system of pure legalized bribery, because you will be back, pre-Watergate, to unlimited contributions that are going for all practical purposes directly to candidates.” For now, super PACs, with their supposed independence, are free to air advertisements attacking opposing candidates while the candidate they support, Marcus writes, “gets to remain above the fray, not required to appear on camera to say that he or she approved this message.” FEC official Ellen Weintraub tells Marcus, “I view the super PAC as the evil twin of the candidate’s campaign committee.” Referring to the legal limit of $2,500 for donations to candidates from individual or corporate donors, Weintraub says, “How can it possibly be true that to give more than $2,500 to a candidate is potentially corrupting but to give millions to an outside group that is acting on the candidate’s behalf is not?” Marcus concludes by saying that “dangerous” super PACs will only increase their influence as the presidential campaign season continues. [Washington Post, 1/3/2012]
Entity Tags: Fred Wertheimer, Willard Mitt Romney, Winning Our Future, Charles R. Spies, Carl Forti, Barack Obama, Washington Post, Federal Election Commission, Steve Roche, Ruth Marcus, Make Us Great Again, Jon Huntsman, James Richard (“Rick”) Perry, Newt Gingrich, Priorities USA Action, Ellen L. Weintraub, Our Destiny, Sheldon Adelson, Restore Our Future
Timeline Tags: Civil Liberties, 2012 Elections
Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich (R-GA), continuing his rhetorical attacks on President Obama, singles out African-Americans as largely dependent on “food stamps.” Appearing at campaign rallies in New Hampshire, Gingrich repeatedly calls Obama “the best food stamp president in history,” says he would be “the best paycheck president in American history,” and says of African-Americans that he wants to tell them why they should “not be satisfied with food stamps.” Gingrich says he would be willing to discuss the topic at the next NAACP convention. Gingrich says: “More people are on food stamps today because of Obama’s policies than ever in history. I would like to be the best paycheck president in American history. Now, there’s no neighborhood I know of in America where if you went around and asked people, ‘Would you rather your children had food stamps or paychecks?’ you wouldn’t end up with a majority saying they’d rather have a paycheck. And so I’m prepared, if the NAACP invites me, I’ll go to their convention and talk about why the African-American community should demand paychecks and not be satisfied with food stamps. And I’ll go to them and explain a brand new Social Security opportunity for young people, which should be particularly good for African-American males—because they’re the group that gets the smallest return on Social Security because they have the shortest life span.” Think Progress reporter Tanya Somanader calls Gingrich’s take on food stamp recipients both “prejudicial” and “false.” The food stamp program, officially known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), has white Americans as the majority of its recipients. Most Americans receiving food stamps are either children or elderly retirees. Working-age women of all races represent only 28 percent of SNAP beneficiaries, and working-age men represent only 17 percent. Many SNAP beneficiaries actually have jobs and bring home paychecks that are their primary source of income; 85 percent of those recipients live below the poverty line. Somanader writes, “Thus, SNAP benefits provide a necessary safety net to families trying to stay afloat in a sluggish economy.” [ABC News, 1/2/2012; Think Progress, 1/5/2012] NAACP president Benjamin Jealous will note that Gingrich rejected multiple invitations to speak at the NAACP convention in past years. [MSNBC, 1/5/2012] Gingrich’s fellow Republican candidate Rick Santorum (R-PA) recently said that he wanted to end the cycle of blacks “taking someone else’s money” via SNAP and other federal safety-net programs (see January 1-3, 2012). Gingrich recently advocated firing most school custodial and maintenance workers and forcing poor children (presumably federal aid recipients) to fill the positions instead (see November 18, 2011 and After and December 1-2, 2011). Previously, Gingrich has accused food stamp recipients of being millionaires and using the money to “go to Hawaii” (coincidentally Obama’s home state). Government and independent experts say that the surge in federal aid recipients—higher now than in any time in US history—is because of policies instituted under George W. Bush and, in some cases, continued by Obama. The stories Gingrich tells of millionaire food stamp recipients vacationing in Hawaii have been shown to be false (see November 30 - December 2, 2011), though under a now-obsolete form of food stamp distribution, some recipients were able to use the proceeds to buy beer or trade them for small amounts of cash. [ABC News, 1/2/2012]
Sheldon Adelson at a celebration of the opening of his Sands Cotai Central casino in Macau, April 2012. [Source: Aaron Tam / AFP / Getty Images / ProPublica]Casino owner Sheldon Adelson, one of America’s wealthiest individuals, gives $5 million to a super PAC acting on behalf of Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich. Adelson’s fortune comes from casinos he owns in Las Vegas and Asia. Adelson has let it be known that he intends to donate much more during the campaign season, both in the primaries and in the general election, when a Republican will challenge President Obama for the presidency. The Washington Post calls Adelson’s donation “the latest in an avalanche of campaign cash flooding the presidential season to independent groups known as super PACs.” Adelson donates the money to Winning Our Future, a super PAC whose predecessor, American Solutions for Winning the Future (ASWF), is plagued with allegations of misconduct and illicit involvement by Gingrich (see December 19, 2011). ASWF was also a benefactor of Adelson’s donations, both monetary and in Adelson’s permission for Gingrich to use his personal aircraft. According to a person close to Adelson, the billionaire is willing to spend at least $5 million more, either on Gingrich or the Republican nominee for president. The source adds that Adelson wants to keep Gingrich competitive in the primary race at least through the January 21 South Carolina primary. If Gingrich does well in South Carolina, as he is predicted to, the source says Gingrich’s super PAC may well receive another hefty donation. In December 2011, Adelson denied saying he planned on donating $20 million to the organization. Adelson and his wife Miriam have known Gingrich since the mid-1990s, when Adelson was locked in disputes with labor unions and government regulators over his construction of the massive Venetian casino in Las Vegas. Like Gingrich, Adelson is extremely conservative on the subject of Israel. Gingrich, buoyed with super PAC donations in recent weeks, did well in the Iowa caucuses (see January 3, 2012) against frontrunner Mitt Romney, whose own super PAC, Restore Our Future, has a stable of wealthy donors keeping pro-Romney and anti-Gingrich ads on the airwaves (see June 23, 2011 and January 3, 2012). Reportedly, Romney’s supporters begged Adelson not to make his contribution to Gingrich, and instead to let Gingrich’s campaign wither without Adelson’s support. Gingrich’s campaign intends to use much of the donation for airtime in South Carolina, and to air portions of a film documenting Romney’s time as CEO of Bain Capital, a private equity firm that oversaw the bankruptcy and dissolution of numerous small businesses and corporations. Gingrich claims Adelson is acting entirely on his own, saying, “If he wants to counterbalance Romney’s millionaires, I have no objection to him counterbalancing Romney’s millionaires.” [Washington Post, 1/7/2012; New York Times, 1/9/2012] Slate columnist Will Oremus observes: “There’s no question that Gingrich has been paid for by Sheldon Adelson. It’s up to voters to decide whether he’s been bought.” [Slate, 1/27/2012]
Entity Tags: Newt Gingrich, Bain Capital, American Solutions for Winning the Future, Miriam Adelson, Winning Our Future, Will Oremus, Restore Our Future, Willard Mitt Romney, Washington Post, Sheldon Adelson, Barack Obama
Timeline Tags: Civil Liberties, 2012 Elections
MSNBC suspends conservative author and commentator Pat Buchanan for racist material in his most recent book, Suicide of a Superpower (see October 18, 2011 and After). The suspension is indefinite. Buchanan has faced heavy criticism from many civil rights organizations and activists after his book was released; it contains such chapter titles as “The End of White America” and “The Death of Christian America.” The activist group Color of Change has mounted a campaign to have Buchanan suspended from the airwaves. MSNBC president Phil Griffin says that the suspension is indefinite, and will not speculate on when or if Buchanan will return to the network. Griffin says of the suspension, “When Pat was on his book tour, because of the content of the book, I didn’t think it should be part of the national dialogue, much less part of the dialogue on MSNBC.” [Raw Story, 1/7/2012; Associated Press, 1/7/2012; Mediaite, 1/7/2012] Griffin adds: “Since then [the book tour] the issue has become the nature of some of the statements in the book.… Pat and I are going to meet soon and discuss it… a decision will be made.” He calls Buchanan “a good guy,” but says “[s]ome of his ideas are alarming.” [New York Times, 1/7/2012] Buchanan has engaged in a number of racially inflammatory comments and actions in the past. In 2009, he launched a number of racially couched attacks on Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor before she was confirmed for the high court (see May 28, 2009, May 31, 2009, and June 12, 2009); in one attack on Sotomayor, he asserted that America was “a country built basically by white people” (see July 16, 2009). That same year, he took part in a political event along with a number of white supremacist figures (see June 20, 2009). Buchanan has repeatedly argued that President Obama is an “affirmative action” president, whose every success can be traced to that program in some form (see October 13, 2009). Buchanan has spoken at events sponsored by the openly white supremacist political party American Third Position (see October 15, 2009 and After). Recently Buchanan apologized for calling Obama “your boy” on an MSNBC talk show hosted by Joe Scarborough. Buchanan first gained public notice with the racially fueled remarks and programs he began as a young communications aide in the Nixon administration (see April 1969). [Raw Story, 1/7/2012; Associated Press, 1/7/2012; Mediaite, 1/7/2012] Color of Change issues the following statement: “ColorOfChange.org welcomes MSNBC’s decision to indefinitely suspend Pat Buchanan. However, it’s time for MSNBC to permanently end their relationship with Pat Buchanan and the hateful, outdated ideas he represents. We appreciate this first step and urge MSNBC to take the important final step to ensure that their brand is no longer associated with Buchanan’s history of passing off white supremacy ideology as mainstream political commentary.” [Raw Story, 1/7/2012]
The nonpartisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) finds that the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly the “food stamp” program, is playing a critical role in keeping American citizens from starving during the economic recession. The program has long been reviled by Republicans and conservatives, and recently Republican presidential contender Newt Gingrich (R-GA) smeared President Obama as “the food stamp president” (see November 30 - December 2, 2011 and January 5, 2012), and falsely claimed that Obama has presided over the largest increase of Americans receiving SNAP assistance in US history (see January 17, 2012). The program benefits a disproportionately large number of children and disabled and elderly people, according to the CBPP. Since the recession began in late 2007, the CBPP says, “SNAP has responded effectively to the recession” in providing much-needed assistance to Americans, particularly since the recession has driven many families into “low-income” status. “According to the Census Bureau’s Supplemental Poverty Measure, which counts SNAP as income, SNAP kept more than 5 million people out of poverty in 2010 and lessened the severity of poverty for millions of others.” As the economy recovers and legislative provisions expire, SNAP spending will decrease, according to Congressional Budget Office (CBO) predictions. “By 2022 SNAP is expected to return nearly to pre-recession levels as a share of GDP. Over the long term, SNAP is not growing faster than the overall economy and thus is not contributing to the nation’s long-term fiscal problems.” The payment accuracy of SNAP is extraordinarily high, the CBPP claims, refuting the claims of massive fraud made by Gingrich and other opponents of the program. And, according to the CBPP, economists say that the program is “one of the most effective forms of economic stimulus,” helping grow the economy as it protects poverty-stricken families. [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 1/9/2012]
A journalist and activist sues to overturn provisions in a US defense spending bill that authorize indefinite military detention, including of US citizens, who are accused of being associated with groups engaged in hostilities with the United States (see December 15, 2011, December 31, 2011). The indefinite detention provisions in the NDAA caused considerable controversy from the time they were first proposed (see July 6, 2011 and after). Chris Hedges, formerly of the New York Times, and his attorneys, Carl J. Mayer and Bruce I. Afran, file the suit seeking an injunction barring enforcement of section 1021 (formerly known as 1031) of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), alleging it is unconstitutional because it infringes on Hedges’ First Amendment right to freedom of speech and association and Fifth Amendment right to due process, and that it imposes military jurisdiction on civilians in violation of Article III and the Fifth Amendment. President Obama and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta are named as defendants in the initial complaint, individually and in their official capacities. [TruthDig, 1/16/2012] Six other writers and activists will later join Hedges as plaintiffs in the lawsuit: Daniel Ellsberg, Jennifer Bolen, Noam Chomsky, Alexa O’Brien, “US Day of Rage,” Kai Wargalla, and Birgitta Jónsdóttir, who is also a member of parliament in Iceland. Senators John McCain (R-AZ), Harry Reid (D-NV), and Mitch McConnell (R-KY), and Representatives Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), John Boehner (R-OH), and Eric Cantor (R-VA), will be added as defendants, in their official capacities. [Final Complaint: Hedges v. Obama, 2/23/2012 ] The plaintiffs, their attorneys, and two supporting organizations, RevolutionTruth and Demand Progress, will establish a Web site to provide news and information related to the case, including legal documents. [StopNDAA.org, 2/10/2012] The Lawfare Blog will also post a number of court documents related to the case, including some not available at StopNDAA.org, such as the declarations of Wargalla, O’Brien, and Jónsdóttir. [Lawfare, 4/4/2012] Journalist and activist Naomi Wolf will file an affidavit supporting the lawsuit. [Guardian, 3/28/2012] The judge in the case, Katherine B. Forrest, will issue a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of the contested section, finding it unconstitutional (see May 16, 2012).
Entity Tags: Chris Hedges, US Congress, US Department of Defense, United States District Court, New York, Southern Division, Carl Mayer, Birgitta JÃ³nsdÃ³ttir, RevolutionTruth, Alexa O’Brien, Barack Obama, Noam Chomsky, White House, Mitch McConnell, Harry Reid, Eric Cantor, Daniel Ellsberg, Jennifer Bolen, Bruce Afran, Nancy Pelosi, Kai Wargalla, John McCain, Katherine B. Forrest, Leon Panetta, John Boehner
Timeline Tags: Civil Liberties
Andrew Adler. [Source: AIB TV (.com)]Andrew Adler, the owner/publisher of the Atlanta Jewish Times (AJT), advises readers that one option for Israel to consider in handling the threat posed by Iran is to order the assassination of President Obama. The Atlanta Jewish Times is a community newspaper that has been in existence since 1925. Adler bought it in 2009. Currently, the AJT claims some 3,500 readers. According to Adler, Israel has three options in considering how to handle the threat posted by Iran: attack Hezbollah and Hamas, attack Iran, or order the assassination of Obama. Adler considers Obama an “enemy” of Israel, and believes Obama has moved the US away from supporting Israel to supporting the Palestinians and an array of Islamist terrorists, pursuing what Adler calls an “Alice in Wonderland” belief that diplomacy with Iran will prevent it from developing a nuclear weapon. He calls his three options a series of “Kobayashi Maru” scenarios, a term used in Star Trek to characterize a seeming “no-win” situation that, if addressed with an unsuspected approach to “solve” the problem, could “redefine” the situation. Adler writes of his third option that Israel could “give the go-ahead for US-based Mossad agents to take out a president deemed unfriendly to Israel in order for the current vice president to take his place, and forcefully dictate that the United States’ policy includes its helping the Jewish state obliterate its enemies. Yes, you read ‘three’ correctly. Order a hit on a president in order to preserve Israel’s existence. Think about it. If I have thought of this Tom Clancy-type scenario, don’t you think that this almost unfathomable idea has been discussed in Israel’s most inner circles? Another way of putting ‘three’ in perspective goes something like this: How far would you go to save a nation comprised of seven million lives… Jews, Christians, and Arabs alike? You have got to believe, like I do, that all options are on the table.” In a subsequent interview by journalist John Cook, Adler backtracks from his original assertions, and denies advocating Obama’s assassination. Contrary to what he wrote, Adler tells Cook that Israel should not consider an Obama assassination as a viable option. When asked if he believes Israel is indeed considering such an option, he responds: “No. Actually, no. I was hoping to make clear that it’s unspeakable—god forbid this would ever happen.” He then asks Cook, “I take it you’re quoting me?” When Cook responds in the affirmative, Adler says, “Oh, boy.” Cook asks Adler why, if he does not advocate assassination and does not believe Israel is considering such an option, would he write such a column saying that the option is “on the table.” Adler asks to call Cook back with a measured response. His answer, several moments later, is, “I wrote it to see what kind of reaction I was going to get from readers.” He has indeed received a reaction: “We’ve gotten a lot of calls and emails,” he tells Cook. [Atlanta Jewish Times, 1/13/2012; Gawker, 1/20/2012; Jewish Telegraphic Agency, 1/20/2012] After Cook’s publication, the online news site Gawker publishes a story about Adler’s column. Adler then informs the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA) that he intends to publish an apology. “I very much regret it, I wish I hadn’t made reference to it at all,” he says. He also admits that the response he has received has been, in JTA’s words, “overwhelmingly negative.” [Jewish Telegraphic Agency, 1/20/2012] Adler tells Atlanta columnist Thomas Wheatley: “I don’t advocate anything. I don’t preach anything. Wasn’t calling for action, anything like that.… Do I regret writing it and how I did it? Very much so and I apologize to anyone who took it differently. But in no way shape or form do I support the overthrowing [of the country] in order for Israel to do its thing.” He says he has not been contacted by law enforcement officials or the Secret Service about his column. [Creative Loafing Atlanta, 1/20/2012] Conservative columnist and blogger Jonah Goldberg writes of Adler’s column: “This is outrageous, offensive, borderline seditious, bad for Israel, bad for Jews, and wildly, incomprehensibly stupid. It sounds like the author/publisher realizes it. But too late to save him from a world of grief.” [National Review, 1/20/2012]
Juan Williams (left) and Newt Gingrich during the Republican presidential debate. [Source: Texas GOP Vote]Fox News commentator Juan Williams, an African-American, takes umbrage with recent comments by presidential candidate Newt Gingrich (R-GA) that he says had unacceptably racial overtones. Williams, moderating a Republican presidential debate in South Carolina with Gingrich and other candidates for Fox News, asks: “Speaker Gingrich, you recently said black Americans should demand jobs, not food stamps (see November 30 - December 2, 2011 and January 5, 2012). You also said poor kids lack a strong work ethic and proposed having them work as janitors in their schools (see November 18, 2011 and After and December 1-2, 2011). Can’t you see that this is viewed, at a minimum, as insulting to all Americans, but particularly to black Americans?” Gingrich responds, “No, I don’t see that.” Gingrich reiterates his call for poor students to earn money by doing janitorial work around their schools, saying that they would earn money, “which is a good thing if you’re poor. Only the elites despise earning money.” Williams presses Gingrich, asking him if his comments, including his reference to Obama as a “food stamp president,” don’t belittle the poor and racial minorities: “My Twitter has been inundated with people of all races asking if your comments are not intended to belittle the poor,” he says. Gingrich retorts: “The fact is more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in American history.… I believe every American of every background has been endowed by their Creator with the right to pursue happiness, and if that makes liberals unhappy, I’m going to continue to find ways to help poor people learn how to get a job, learn how to get a better job, and learn someday to own the job.” The debate audience, described by Think Progress’s Ian Millhiser as “largely white [and] Republican,” cheers Gingrich’s remarks and boos Williams. [Fox News, 1/16/2012; Mediaite, 1/16/2012; Think Progress, 1/17/2012] Williams later says that he believes Gingrich is “pandering” to conservative and presumably racist voters in the audience (see January 18, 2012). Conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh will accuse Williams, not Gingrich, of appealing to racism in his question. “[T]his line of questioning was all racially tinted from Juan Williams,” Limbaugh will say. “Newt Gingrich did not take the bait and answer in a racial context. He answered within the context that we’re all people and that we, as conservatives, want the best for everybody.… [W]e are for everybody doing well, that we conservatives do not see black and white, male, female, gay, straight when we look at people down the line. We see potential. We want the best for everybody. We know what’s holding ‘em back, and that’s government, government central planners, people like Barack Obama, [House Minority Leader Nancy] Pelosi, [Senate Majority Leader Harry] Reid, who look at people and see them with contempt and condescension, see them being incapable, and they treat them that way and they devise systems to deal with them that way, and they keep them forever dependent, which destroys their humanity, which makes us sick. It breaks our hearts.” [Rush Limbaugh, 1/17/2012] Limbaugh later claims that Williams would not have a job if not for “the white guy, conservative who runs Fox News.” [Media Matters, 1/31/2012] Millhiser reiterates the facts that “[t]he overwhelming majority of African-Americans are not on food stamps” and “the majority of [Americans] who receive food stamps are white.” He writes: “It’s deeply disturbing that a man who claims he should be president of the United States cannot understand why his remarks are offensive.… Gingrich’s suggestion that food stamps are somehow a preeminent black issue flies in the face of reality. Worse, it lumps all African-Americans together as federal aid recipients when the overwhelming majority of working-age black men and women are self-supporting taxpayers. Thousands of them are professionals such as doctors or lawyers. One of them is the president of the United States.” [Think Progress, 1/17/2012] Gingrich has a history of making racially questionable remarks and characterizations (see May 27, 2009, June 7, 2009, August 16, 2010, September 12, 2010 and After and December 13, 2011). His claim that Obama has presided over more Americans receiving food stamps than ever before is wrong (see January 17, 2012). And a recent study by the nonpartisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found SNAP to be an extraordinarily effective program in helping Americans survive the effects of the recession (see January 9, 2012).
The nonpartisan FactCheck.org finds that recent claims by presidential candidate Newt Gingrich (R-GA) that “more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in American history” are wrong. In fact, far more Americans were added to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) rolls under President George W. Bush than under Obama. Gingrich has made the claim in a number of political speeches (see November 30 - December 2, 2011 and January 5, 2012), but his reiteration of the claim during a recent Republican debate in South Carolina has drawn a great deal of media attention (see January 16, 2012). FactCheck finds: “Gingrich would have been correct to say the number now on food aid is historically high. The number stood at 46,224,722 persons as of October, the most recent month on record. And it’s also true that the number has risen sharply since Obama took office. But Gingrich goes too far to say Obama has put more on the rolls than other presidents.” Information from the US Department of Agriculture (USDA)‘s Food and Nutrition Service going back to January 2001 “show[s] that under President George W. Bush the number of recipients rose by nearly 14.7 million. Nothing before comes close to that.” Moreover, “the program has so far grown by 444,574 fewer recipients during Obama’s time in office than during Bush’s.” The trend in recent months has been for the number of food-stamp recipients to decline, another fact Gingrich fails to note. FactCheck finds that the rise in the number of Americans on food stamps—currently one out of seven—began during the second term of the Bush presidency. “In the 12 months before Obama was sworn in, 4.4 million were added to the rolls, triple the 1.4 million added in 2007,” the organization writes. “To be sure, Obama is responsible for some portion of the increase since then. The stimulus bill he signed in 2009 increased benefit levels, making the program more attractive. A family of four saw an increase of $80 per month, for example.… The stimulus also made more people eligible. Able-bodied jobless adults without dependents could get benefits for longer than three months.” Part of the reason for the higher number of recipients under Obama is the new outreach to eligible citizens by state governments, according to the USDA; many state governments have worked harder to inform eligible citizens of their right to apply for government assistance, and have reduced the amount of information that claimants must provide to receive assistance. FactCheck concludes: “We don’t argue that the program is either too large (as Gingrich does) or too small. It has certainly reached a historically high level, and may or may not grow even larger in the months to come. But the plain fact is that the growth started long before Obama took office, and participation grew more under Bush.” And it quotes the USDA’s Kevin Concannon, who recently told a Wall Street Journal reporter, “I realize Mr. Gingrich is a historian, but I’m not sure he’d get very high marks on that paper.” [USA Today, 1/17/2012] CBS News notes that the White House has called Gingrich’s claims “crazy,” and finds: “While the number of people on food stamps is indeed at a record level, that’s in part because of eligibility rules being relaxed under the administration of George W. Bush. It’s also due in part to the economic downturn that began under Mr. Bush.… [T]hat percentage increase hardly makes Obama the ‘best food stamp president in American history,’ at least when you look at the question proportionally. The percent increase in beneficiaries during Mr. Bush’s presidency was higher than it has been under Mr. Obama: The number of beneficiaries went from 17.3 million in 2001 to 28.2 million in 2008—an increase of 63 percent in years that are mostly considered non-recessionary.” [CBS News, 1/17/2012] US News and World Report agrees with FactCheck, finding that “SNAP participation has been on the rise since well before President Obama took office. Nearly 17.2 million people in FY 2000 participated in the program, a figure that increased by nearly 64 percent by 2008.” [US News and World Report, 1/17/2012] The Associated Press accuses Gingrich of distorting the facts and notes: “It’s gotten easier to qualify for food stamps in the past decade but that is because of measures taken before Obama became president. It’s true that the number of people on food stamps is now at a record level. That’s due mainly to the ailing economy, which Republicans blame on Obama, as well as rising food costs. The worst downturn since the Great Depression wiped out 8.7 million jobs, pushed the unemployment rate to a peak of 10 percent in October 2009, and increased poverty.” [Associated Press, 1/17/2012] The nonpartisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has found that SNAP is a critical element in keeping poverty-stricken Americans, particularly children and the elderly, from starving during the economic recession (see January 9, 2012).
Entity Tags: Kevin Concannon, CBS News, Barack Obama, Associated Press, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, George W. Bush, US News and World Report, Obama administration, FactCheck (.org), US Department of Agriculture, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Newt Gingrich
Timeline Tags: Global Economic Crises, Domestic Propaganda, 2012 Elections
New York Times political columnist Charles Blow attacks presidential candidate Newt Gingrich (R-GA) for “belittling” both African Americans and African-American debate moderator Juan Williams in a recent Republican presidential debate (see January 16, 2012). Blow accuses Gingrich of “sneer[ing]” at Williams “for having the temerity to ask him if his condescending remarks about the work ethic of poor black people are indeed condescending.” He also points out the underlying messages in Gingrich’s statements: When Gingrich says that “only the elites despise earning money,” Blow writes that his implication is “that elites are liberals, not men like Gingrich—whose net worth the Los Angeles Times has estimated to be $6.7 million, who was a history professor, who was paid $1.6 million dollars by Freddie Mac for ‘advice,’ and who had a half million dollar line of credit at Tiffany’s. If Gingrich isn’t among America’s elite, the word no longer has meaning.” Instead, Blow writes, Gingrich is targeting President Obama as an “elitist liberal.” Blow quotes Gingrich earlier in the debate saying: “It tells you everything you need to know about the difference between Barack Obama and the [other four Republican candidates in the debate]: that we actually think work is good. We actually think saying to somebody, ‘I’ll help you if you’re willing to help yourself’ is good. And we think unconditionally efforts by the best food stamp president in American history to maximize dependency is terrible for the future of this country.” Gingrich has repeatedly labeled Obama as “the food stamp president” (see November 30 - December 2, 2011 and January 5, 2012). Blow writes: “The phrase ‘maximize dependency’ is a particularly interesting one because it suggests a systematic, orchestrated campaign by the president and liberals in general to keep blacks poor and dependent on ‘big government’ as a way of insuring their continued political support. This is a classic, right-wing, race-based argument in a new suit.” Williams asked again if Gingrich could not see that he was deriding African-Americans by his remarks, and Gingrich reiterated his positions and again insulted poor people’s work ethic. Blow observes: “These exchanges, and the audience’s response to them, underscore how Republicans’ gut reactions and their official rhetoric diverge, particularly in the [S]outh. [Gingrich] understands this cleavage and knows how to exploit it in subtle and sophisticated ways.… Gingrich seems to understand the historical weight of the view among some southern whites, many of whom have migrated to the Republican Party, that blacks are lazy and addicted to handouts. He is able to give voice to those feelings without using those words. He is able to make people believe that a fundamentally flawed and prejudicial argument that demeans minorities is actually for their uplift. It is Gingrich’s gift: He is able to make ill will sound like good will.” [New York Times, 1/17/2012]
Fox News begins adopting the characterization of President Obama as “the food stamp president” currently being used by Republican presidential contender Newt Gingrich (see November 30 - December 2, 2011, January 5, 2012, and January 16, 2012). On January 17, Fox host Eric Bolling says of Obama: “But he is the food stamp president. There[.] I have no problem with this.… Obama has presided—presided over the biggest expansion in food stamp usage, in numbers: in pure dollar amount, it went from $60 billion to an $83 billion program—the fourth-largest entitlement program in America. Under Obama, it’s exploded. Why can’t he be—and by the way, food stamps, there are more white people on food stamps than black people. So it’s not a racial issue.” [Media Matters, 1/17/2012; Media Matters, 1/31/2012] The same day, Fox pundit Tucker Carlson says on Sean Hannity’s show that Gingrich is doing a “great job” explaining why Obama is “the food stamp president,” adding, “And more people have joined the food stamp program under Obama than any other president.” The day after, Fox pundit Dick Morris says on Hannity’s show: “Newt is totally right. When Obama took office, there were 32 million people on food stamps. Now, there are 46 million. What Obama has done is, under [former President] Clinton, he cut the welfare rolls in half, and now Obama has basically put everybody in the country on welfare.” Another of Hannity’s guests, former Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK), criticizes the White House for challenging Gingrich’s characterizations, saying “they protest too much because the facts are what they are—and that’s hundreds of thousands of more Americans are now on food stamps than before Barack Obama took over.” Hannity agrees, saying: “He is the food stamp president. Look at the numbers, they speak for themselves—32 million to 46 million, 12 million increase. Obama’s policies have resulted in a lot more people being on food stamps. What’s the problem?” Fox’s “straight news” anchor Monica Crowley reiterates the characterization on Fox News’s America Live, telling viewers: “At this point, what Newt is saying is that this administration took a bad economy and made it so much worse, with polices that have really oppressed job creation, suppressed economic growth, to the point where people cannot find jobs. And also, you know, one thing he didn’t say, which is the extension of unemployment benefits to 99 weeks and so on. You know how the situation in America… where you have record numbers of people not just on food stamps, 46 million, but record numbers of people on at least one or more social welfare programs, and that’s a direct result of the Obama administration’s policies.” [Media Matters, 1/19/2012; Media Matters, 1/31/2012] The liberal media watchdog organization Media Matters notes that according to the statistics, the number of food stamp recipients went up far more under President George W. Bush than under Obama, rendering the claims of Gingrich and the Fox News commentators inaccurate (see January 17, 2012). [Media Matters, 1/31/2012]
Entity Tags: Newt Gingrich, Eric Bolling, Dick Morris, Barack Obama, Fox News, Media Matters, Tucker Carlson, Sarah Palin, Sean Hannity, George W. Bush
Timeline Tags: Domestic Propaganda, 2012 Elections
The news Web site Politico reports that many Democrats are worried that the “flat-out” opposition of President Obama to super PACs, including the one supporting his re-election, will cripple the Obama campaign’s re-election campaign for 2012, especially in the face of enormous corporate donations for Republican-supporting super PACs. The super PAC that supports Obama, Priorities USA Action, has been in operation since 2011, but has so far raised relatively little—around $5 million—in comparison to Republican super PACs and other such organizations. The super PAC supporting Republican contender Mitt Romney (R-MA), Restore Our Future (ROF—see June 23, 2011 and July 12, 2011), has raised $12 million so far, and other groups such as American Crossroads and its “nonprofit” affiliate, Crossroads GPS, have raised far more. Former South Carolina Democratic Chairman Dick Harpootlian, a member of the Obama campaign’s national finance committee, says: “I don’t think the president is just ambivalent about his super PAC. He’s flat-out opposed to it.… I was at the national finance committee in Chicago, and these are the people with these connections, and nobody was talking, even behind the scenes, about writing checks to the super PAC. That’s a problem. We didn’t make the rules. The president has called out the Supreme Court on Citizens United to their faces (see January 21, 2010, January 24, 2010, and January 27-29, 2010).… But it’s the state of play now, and we have to look at what Romney’s PAC did to [Republican primary challenger Newt Gingrich] in Iowa (see January 3, 2012). It’s dangerous. We can’t unilaterally disarm.” So far, Obama’s campaign has pledged that neither Obama nor his top aides will raise money for super PACs, but the campaign says it realizes the magnitude of the threat posed by the wide-open fundraising from the GOP. In a concession, Obama’s senior campaign staff will allow their top bundlers to ask wealthy contributors for donations to Priorities USA Action. Vice President Joseph Biden has already spoken before a meeting of major donors in November 2011, hours after those donors heard fundraising pitches from Priorities USA Action and other Democratic groups. Democratic strategist Paul Begala, who is helping the Obama campaign reach out to donors, says: “Super PACs are like guns. In the right hands, a gun is useful, essential for defending your country and perfectly acceptable. In the wrong hands, they kill people.… My goal is to make sure the president doesn’t get outgunned.” Obama campaign advisor David Axelrod says of the organizations lining up behind Romney: “They’re talking upwards of half a billion dollars in negative ads aimed at the president from interest groups who don’t disclose and who can raise unlimited amounts of money. That is a very, very concerning thing to me.” [Politico, 1/18/2012]
Entity Tags: David Axelrod, American Crossroads, 2012 Obama presidential election campaign, Willard Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, Restore Our Future, Politico, Dick Harpootlian, Joseph Biden, Priorities USA Action, Newt Gingrich, American Crossroads GPS, Paul Begala
Timeline Tags: Civil Liberties, 2012 Elections
Former Republican presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty (R-MN), now a supporter of Republican frontrunner Mitt Romney (R-MA), tells a reporter from the liberal news Web site Think Progress that the 2010 Citizens United decision allowing donors to contribute unlimited amounts of money to independent groups supporting individual candidates (see January 21, 2010) is “leveling the playing field” in politics. Reporters Scott Keyes and Travis Waldron call Pawlenty’s comment “a turn of phrase that would give George Orwell satisfaction.” Since the decision, a relatively small number of wealthy corporations and individuals have transformed US politics with their multi-million dollar donations (see January 21-22, 2010, March 26, 2010, August 2, 2010, September 13-16, 2010, September 21 - November 1, 2010, September 28, 2010, October 2010, Around October 27, 2010, November 1, 2010, (May 4, 2011), May 5, 2011, July 12, 2011, August 4, 2011, October 27, 2011, October 30, 2011, December 1, 2011, December 19, 2011, January 3, 2012, and January 6, 2012). But Pawlenty seemingly believes that campaign finance laws are still too restrictive, and says he believes that donors should be able to make unlimited donations directly to candidates (see December 21, 2011 and January 10, 2012) instead of making those donations to third-party groups. Pawlenty refuses to say the Citizens United decision will help Romney defeat President Obama in the November general election, and instead says that the decision helps “free speech” (see January 21, 2010 and January 22, 2010). Pawlenty continues: “Every time they try to contain speech, it pops up somewhere else. This is just me talking personally, I’m not speaking for Mitt’s position on this. The better position is to allow full and free speech in whatever form, but have instant disclosure.” Keyes asks, “You’re talking completely unlimited donations?” and Pawlenty responds: “We have that now, it’s just a question of where the money gets pushed to the third party groups. This leveling the playing field to some extent because in the past, unions in particular (see June 25, 1943 and June 23, 1947) and other interest groups had an advantage in the old system. Now the playing field’s being leveled a little bit.” He clarifies: “Right now, with super PACs and third party groups, there’s essentially unlimited giving to various aligned super PACs and groups. The point is, the United States Supreme Court has spoken. They have said we’re going to have free speech as it relates to political contributions. The First Amendment should be respected and protected, but I think we should also have full disclosure.” Keyes and Waldron write that billionaire corporate owners such as the Koch brothers (see 1977-Present, 1979-1980, 1997, 1981-2010, 1984 and After, Late 2004, May 6, 2006, April 15, 2009, May 29, 2009, November 2009, December 6, 2009, April 2010 and After, July 3-4, 2010, June 26-28, 2010, August 28, 2010, August 30, 2010, September 24, 2010, January 5, 2011, October 4, 2011, and February 14, 2011) have pledged staggering amounts of money to defeat Obama in the November elections, and conclude, “This massive influx of unregulated campaign spending will almost certainly be the new normal as wealthy individuals and corporations find new ways to influence elections, helped in large part by the now-two year old Citizens United decision.” [Think Progress, 1/21/2012]
Grover Norquist, a highly influential conservative lobbyist and activist, says that if President Obama wins re-election in 2012, Congressional Republicans will impeach him to regain control of the nation’s governance. Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform and a hardline opponent of government taxation, tells the National Journal that he expects Obama to raise taxes on the wealthy in 2013. He is best known for his anti-tax pledge, which almost all Congressional Republicans and a few Democrats have signed, and which states their absolute opposition to any tax hikes of any kind. The online news site National Confidential says that signers who break that pledge will likely “face a primary opponent funded by Norquist and his shadowy multi-millionaire donors.” Norquist says of Obama’s record of cutting taxes on middle- and lower-class taxpayers: “He came up with this idea for the one-year tax holiday so he could claim that he’s for a tax cut. Mind you, it’s a temporary tax cut, but he does not want to run as a tax increaser. I think [Republicans are] in reasonably good shape. Between now and November, I believe we will see a one-year extension of the FICA tax [cut]. I believe we will see the extension of [the break on] depreciation spending. And then the third one that you could have is repatriation. If I was Obama’s political consultant, I’d have put repatriation on the table when he extended the Bush-era tax cuts by two years [in 2010]. The estimates are that it would bring $6 [billion] to $800 billion back. If I were president, I would love to have that money flow back into the real economy, not the Solyndra economy, the year before I’m running for office.” [National Journal, 1/28/2012; National Confidential, 1/28/2012] “Repatriation” is the idea that American corporations can receive one-time tax breaks by putting their foreign earnings into the American economy. Norquist’s reference to “the Solyndra economy” refers to the controversy surrounding the recently bankrupted Solyndra Corporation, which received $528 million in federal loan guarantees and which some conservatives, including Norquist, have attempted to tie to the Obama administration. [Investopedia, 2012; New York Times, 2012] Norquist predicts that if re-elected, Obama will allow a number of tax cuts on large corporations and the wealthy to expire at the end of 2012, and this, he says, will allow Congressional Republicans to begin impeachment proceedings. “We’re focused on the fact that there is this Damocles sword hanging over people’s head,” he says. “What you don’t know is who will be in charge when all of this will happen. I think when we get through this election cycle, we’ll have a Republican majority, [though] not necessarily a strong majority in the Senate, and a majority in the House. The majority in the House will continue to be a Reagan majority, a conservative majority. [House Speaker John] Boehner never has to talk his delegation going further to the right. If the Republicans have the House, Senate, and the presidency, I’m told that they could do an early budget vote—a reconciliation vote where you extend the Bush tax cuts out for a decade or five years. You take all of those issues off the table and then say, ‘What do you want to do for tax reform?’ Then, the question is, ‘OK, what do we do about repatriation and all of the interesting stuff?’ And, if you have a Republican president to go with a Republican House and Senate, then they pass the [Paul] Ryan plan [on Medicare],” referring to House Representative Paul Ryan’s plan to virtually end Medicare and replace it with a privatized voucher system. If the Democrats retain control of Congress and the White House, Norquist says: “Obama can sit there and let all the tax [cuts] lapse, and then the Republicans will have enough votes in the Senate in 2014 to impeach. The last year, he’s gone into this huddle where he does everything by executive order. He’s made no effort to work with Congress.” [National Journal, 1/28/2012] According to the US Constitution, “The President, Vice President, and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” [Constitution of the United States, 6/21/1788] It is unclear how Norquist frames his prediction of Obama’s allowing tax cut legislation to lapse as constituting “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes [or] Misdemeanors.”
The Obama campaign reverses its previous policy and begins asking major contributors to donate to a super PAC, Priorities USA, that supports President Obama’s re-election. Previously, the Obama campaign, and Obama himself, had been reluctant to ask for donations for the PAC. Since 2010, Democrats have been worried about the effect of the Republican super PACs on the presidential campaign as well as Congressional and even state and local races, but have been divided on how to respond to the flood of money in support of their Republican opponents (see August 2, 2010, September 13-16, 2010, September 24, 2010, October 18, 2010, Around October 27, 2010, Mid-November 2010, August 4, 2011, October 27, 2011, December 1, 2011, January 3, 2012, and January 6, 2012). Obama campaign spokesman Jim Messina says that Republican-supporting super PACs are collectively expected to spend “half a billion dollars, above and beyond what the Republican nominee and party are expected to commit to try to defeat the president. With so much at stake, we can’t allow for two sets of rules in this election whereby the Republican nominee is the beneficiary of unlimited spending and Democrats unilaterally disarm.… We’re not going to fight this fight with one hand tied behind our back.” Messina also says that Obama is strongly against such campaign finance practices, and supports strong action “by constitutional amendment, if necessary” to once again restrict campaign donations from the wealthy. (In January 2012, Politico reported that Obama was completely opposed to the idea of super PACs, including his own—see January 18, 2012.) Joe Pounder of the Republican National Committee issues a statement harshly critical of the decision, which reads in part, “Yet again, Barack Obama has proven he will literally do anything to win an election, including changing positions on the type of campaign spending he called nothing short of ‘a threat to our democracy.’” So far, super PACs supporting Republican candidates have raised over $50 million, putting the Obama campaign at a distinct disadvantage. New York Democratic fundraiser Robert Zimmerman observes: “It’s hard to pass the plate for super PAC money while Democratic leaders have been preaching about the sins of it. But the reality is, it is essential in 2012.” Campaign and White House officials will appear at fundraisers for Priorities USA, though neither the president nor the first lady will make such appearances. Super PACs, created by the Citizens United decision (see January 21, 2010) and a lower court decision in the wake of that ruling (see March 26, 2010), have come to dominate US election activities, particularly in the area of television, radio, and print advertising. Shortly after the Citizens United decision, Obama criticized it during his State of the Union address, saying: “I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests or, worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and I’d urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps correct some of these problems” (see January 27-29, 2010). However, Congress has been unable to rein in the super PACs, with the most visible effort, Congressional Democrats’ DISCLOSE Act, being successfully filibustered by Senate Republicans (see July 26-27, 2010). CBS News political expert John Dickerson says the Obama campaign has no choice but to emulate the Republicans: “What the Obama camp saw is these fundraising numbers from last year. The Republicans were able to raise so much money. They also saw what Romney was able to do to Newt Gingrich in Florida, just absolutely bury him under ads, and they started to worry about what this was going to mean for the president in the general election.” Dickerson says that with the public perception of Republican frontrunner Mitt Romney (R-MA) being so negative, the ads in support of Romney will undoubtedly be quite negative against Obama. Dickerson expects the Obama campaign to retaliate in kind, saying: “Some of the things that Romney had to do to combat those [primary] attacks, he had to get a little bit more negative, seem a little bit more unpleasant as a candidate.… That’s another reason why [Obama] had to make this decision on super PACs: that this is going to be ugly, it’s going to be on the airwaves, and they need to be able to compete.” [New York Times, 2/6/2012; CBS News, 2/7/2012] The Obama campaign’s announcement comes on the same day as news that the Romney campaign has benefited from $1.22 million in funding from oil, gas, and coal corporations (see February 6, 2012).
According to data reported by the Sunlight Foundation, Crossroads GPS, the organization raising and spending money on behalf of Republican candidates in the presidential election, reported spending $500,000 on ads attacking President Obama in Arizona, Michigan, Minnesota, and Missouri. Those ads are somewhat countered by $36,000 of ads aired by Planned Parenthood Action Fund in Florida and Michigan. Under campaign finance law, groups such as these are not required to reveal their donors, though they are required to periodically reveal to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) that the ads have been bought, and how much was spent on them. One of Crossroads GPS’s ads accuses Obama of funneling government money to failed projects such as solar panel maker Solyndra, and ignoring those laid off by these companies. The Planned Parenthood ad lauds Obama for protecting access to affordable birth control. Crossroads GPS is a veteran in the post-Citizens United campaign finance world, having spent some $16 million in the 2010 elections, while the Planned Parenthood group is a relatively new player in the field, making its first expenditures on behalf of House candidate Kathy Hochul in 2011. [Sunlight Foundation, 2/7/2012]
Whitney Houston. [Source: Sandra Rose (.com)]Fox News posts a story about the sudden and as-yet-unexplained death of African-American singer Whitney Houston. Within minutes, the story receives numerous comments featuring a variety of racial slurs against Houston and African-Americans in general. Conservative blogger Charles Johnson lambasts the commenters and Fox News for the posts. Johnson writes: “I don’t even know what to say about this any more. There’s a real sickness running rampant in the right wing; the Fox News comment thread on Whitney Houston’s death is yet another disgusting deluge of outright racism.… There are almost 5,000 comments posted in the thread.” He quotes a number of the comments posted on the first few pages, noting that “the racist b_stards deliberately misspell their slurs or insert random spaces, so they aren’t caught by word filters. And many of the worst comments have numerous ‘likes’ from other commenters.” Calling Houston a “n_gger” is the most common slur used, with the first comment Johnson quotes calling her “just an inferior lo w life ni gg er that needed to go,no tragedy,no loss.” Many inaccurately call Houston a “thug” from the “ghetto” and speculate that she died from a drug overdose, with some labeling her a “crack ho.” Others insult African-Americans’ intelligence, physical type, and work ethic. Some call her a “monkey,” and many reference her “jungle” origins. Many insult her as a woman and make crude sexual references to her. Many celebrate her death as another African-American “off the public social rolls,” while others cheer the loss of another “Obama voter.” One poster writes, “To bad it wasnt the monkey in the White House.” Another poster writes: “I am now patiently waiting for the grand messiah Obama to have a blk fundraiser in honor of Whitley with Kevin Costner as guest of honor with all the Hollywood elites invited along with Alan Colmes, Al Sharpton, Jeremia Wright, Charles Rangel, etc. with a menu featuring blk eyed peas, grits, Imported Kobe steak, Dom Perignon, sweet potato pie and a mus lll im scarf as a momento of this great occasion. Of course the door prize will be an all expense paid trip to Kenya to visit the Obama tribe and birthplace of his ancestors while the American people still look for this imposter’s birth certificate in Hawaii !!!” The commenter deliberately misspells “Muslim,” presumably to avoid having his or her comment filtered. Another poster blames “the black gene pool” for being genetically inferior and thereby unable to “handle fame and fortune whether it’s derived from music, acting, sports or just plain entertainment.” Another poster says African-Americans are not “included in the human race.” Another accuses Houston of smoking crack with President Obama, and of having sexual relations with him, accusations echoed by subsequent posters. One asks why “Afro-Americans” are allowed to “use English names” when they should be named “Kunta Kinti or Moguba Magaba.” After quoting several pages of comments, Johnson writes: “There’s more. A lot more. But I have to stop now because it’s making me physically ill.” [Fox News, 2/12/2012; Charles Johnson, 2/12/2012] The day after, Fox News deletes the entire comments thread and purges all of the comments from public view. Johnson writes: “It was probably easier to just trash the whole thing than try to moderate 5,000 comments full of racial slurs. I’ll bet somebody at Fox News is pretty pissed off at me today.” [Charles Johnson, 2/13/2012] At the far-right blog Free Republic, a poster blames “liberals” for posting the comments as part of what he calls a “COINTELPRO” (or counterintelligence program) operation, and implies Johnson is behind the “scheme.” The Free Republic post features its own racist comments about Houston, with one commenter calling her a “schvatza,” a Yiddish racial slur. [Free Republic (.com), 2/13/2012]
The Republican presidential primaries are being largely controlled, at least from a financial standpoint, by a very few extraordinarily wealthy individuals, according to research provided by former Treasury Secretary Robert Reich and the news organization ProPublica. In January 2012, the campaign of frontrunner Rick Santorum (R-PA) was almost entirely funded by billionaires William Dore and multi-millionaire Foster Friess (see February 16-17, 2012), who between them supplied over three-quarters of the $2.1 million donated to Santorum’s “super PAC” “Red White and Blue Fund.” Dore is the president of a Louisiana energy corporation and Friess is a fund manager in Wyoming. Of the $11 million raised by the super PAC supporting Newt Gingrich (R-GA), $10 million came from Sheldon Adelson and his wife, Miriam. Adelson runs a casino ownership group in Las Vegas. Most of the rest of Gingrich’s funding came from Texas billionaire Harold Simmons. PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel provided $1.7 million of the $2.4 million raised in January by the super PAC for Ron Paul (R-TX). As for Mitt Romney (R-MA), himself a multi-millionaire, his super PAC “Restore Our Future” raised $6.6 million in January. Almost all of it came from 40 donors, including hedge fund billionaires Bruce Kovner, Julian Robertson (the largest donor at $1.25 million), and David Tepper, hotel owners J.W. Marriott and Richard Marriott, and Hewlett-Packard CEO Meg Whitman. The lobbying firm FreedomWorks (see 1984 and After, May 16, 2008, February 16-17, 2009, February 19, 2009 and After, February 27, 2009, March 13, 2009 and After, April 2009 and After, April 14, 2009, April 15, 2009, June 26, 2009, Late July, 2009, August 5, 2009, August 6, 2009, August 6-7, 2009, August 10, 2009, August 14, 2009, August 19, 2009, August 24, 2010, September 2010, September 12, 2010 and August 17, 2011) has contributed over $1.4 million to various Republican candidates. Reich writes, “Whoever emerges as the GOP standard-bearer will be deeply indebted to a handful of people, each of whom will expect a good return on their investment.” Reich goes on to cite American Crossroads’s “super PAC” Crossroads GPS, founded by Republican political consultant Karl Rove, and its lineup of corporate moguls contributing hundreds of millions of dollars. The lineup of Crossroads supporters includes Charles and David Koch (see 1940 and After, 1977-Present, 1979-1980, 1981-2010, 1984 and After, 1997, Late 2004, Late 2004, October 2008, August 5, 2009, November 2009, July 3-4, 2010, August 30, 2010, September 2010, August 17, 2011, April 2010 and After and October 4, 2011), and Harold Simmons, owner of Contran Corporation, who has contributed $10 million to the organization. Reich says there is no legal way to know exactly how much the Kochs and their fellows have contributed: “The public will never know who or what corporation gave what because, under IRS regulations, such nonprofit ‘social welfare organizations’ aren’t required to disclose the names of those who contributed to them.” The previous limit of $5,000 per year per individual was erased by the 2010 Supreme Court Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, a decision Reich calls “grotesque.” Reich writes: “In a sense, Santorum, Gingrich, Paul, and Romney are the fronts. Dore et al. are the real investors.… Now, the limits are gone. And this comes precisely at a time when an almost unprecedented share of the nation’s income and wealth is accumulating at the top. Never before in the history of our Republic have so few spent so much to influence the votes of so many.” [The Atlantic, 2/2/2012; Salon, 2/21/2012; ProPublica, 2/21/2012] President Obama’s super PAC, “Priorities USA Action,” has received $2 million from Hollywood mogul Jeffrey Katzenberg and another $1 million from the Service Employees International Union’s Committee on Political Education (SEIU COPE). However, Priorities USA has raised relatively paltry sums in comparison to the monies raised by the Republican super PACs, according to a Reuters report. Obama and his re-election campaign had originally distanced themselves from the super PAC operating in their name, in part because they disapprove of the Citizens United decision and the influence of super PACs in electoral politics. Since the Obama campaign officially endorsed the organization, donations have risen. Obama campaign advisor David Axelrod says that Obama “believes that this is an unhealthy development in our political process, but it is a reality of the rules as they stand. This was not a quick decision, but he also feels a responsibility to win this election. There’s a lot hanging on this beyond him.” By the end of January, Priorities USA had raised $4.2 million. In contrast, Romney’s “Restore Our Future” had raised $36.8 million by the end of last month. [Reuters, 2/2012; ProPublica, 2/21/2012] Partly in response to reports of billionaires’ influence on the 2012 elections, comedian Bill Maher will announce his donation of $1 million to the Obama super PAC. Maher will tell an audience that an Obama victory over any of the Republican contenders is “worth a million dollars” and will describe the donation as “the wisest investment I think I could make.” [Los Angeles Times, 2/24/2012] Friess is often described in the press as a “billionaire,” but both Friess and Forbes magazine say that appellation is inaccurate. [Forbes, 2/8/2012]
Entity Tags: Republican Party, Richard Marriott, Rick Santorum, Peter Thiel, Robert Reich, William Dore, Service Employees International Union Committee on Political Education, Newt Gingrich, Willard Mitt Romney, Sheldon Adelson, Ron Paul, Miriam Adelson, ProPublica (.org), Karl C. Rove, Charles Koch, American Crossroads, David Axelrod, American Crossroads GPS, Meg Whitman, Bill Maher, Barack Obama, David Koch, David Tepper, Foster Friess, Julian Robertson, Jeffrey Katzenberg, Bruce Kovner, J. W. (“Bill”) Marriott, FreedomWorks, Harold Simmons
Timeline Tags: Civil Liberties, 2012 Elections
Almost a quarter of the millions donated to super PACs so far during the campaign season comes from just five donors, a USA Today analysis shows. Super PACs are political organizations that exist to influence elections, which take unlimited amounts of outside money from donors, including individuals, unions, and corporations, and pool that money to advocate for or against a candidate (see March 26, 2010). By law, super PACs are supposed to operate independently of a candidate’s official campaign organization. In August 2011, a USA Today analysis showed that a dozen wealthy individuals and corporations contributed over half of the money given to super PACs (see August 4, 2011). Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus has called the influence of the supposedly independent organizations corrosively corrupting and extraordinarily dangerous, and correctly predicted that their influence would increase as the campaign season wears on (see January 3, 2012). Four of those donors are:
Dallas industrialist Harold Simmons, who financed the 2004 “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth” campaign that vilified presidential candidate John Kerry (D-MA), has given $12 million to the Republican super PAC “American Crossroads” and $2.2 million to super PACs supporting Republican presidential candidates;
Las Vegas casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson, who with his wife Miriam has given $10 million to “Winning the Future,” the super PAC supporting Republican candidate Newt Gingrich (R-GA—see December 19, 2011 and January 6, 2012), and who says he is willing to donate up to $100 million more to keep Gingrich in the race (see February 21, 2012);
Silicon Valley venture capitalist Peter Thiel, who has given $2.6 million to “Endorse Liberty,” a super PAC backing Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) and his presidential campaign;
Houston real estate developer Bob Perry, who has given $3.6 million to super PACs, including $2.5 million to American Crossroads. Perry formerly backed Governor Rick Perry (R-TX) and former Governor Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) in the presidential primaries, but has now shifted his allegiance to frontrunner Mitt Romney (R-MA).
Republican organizations have vastly outraised their Democratic counterparts, though so far much of the money spent by Republican organizations has been to attack Republican presidential candidates during the primary campaigns. Indeed, some political observers say that Romney would have secured the nomination long ago if not for the billionaires supporting other Republican candidates. “Without the flow of super PAC money, the Republican race would be over,” says campaign finance expert Anthony Corrado. “Super PACs have become a vehicle for a very small number of millionaires and billionaires who are willing to spend large sums in pursuit of their political agenda.” Political scientist Cal Jillson says of the billionaires contributing these huge sums: “They are extremely wealthy people who put their resources behind their vision of the appropriate relationship between the government and the private sector. That vision is low taxes, small government, and personal responsibility.” The super PAC working on behalf of President Obama, “Priorities USA,” collected $2 million in late 2011 from Hollywood executive Jeffrey Katzenberg, but since then has raised relatively paltry amounts in comparison to its Republican counterparts. It raised a mere $59,000 in January 2012, most of that made up of a $50,000 contribution from John Rogers, CEO of Arial Investments and a close friend of Obama. [USA Today, 2/21/2012] The USA Today analysis is congruent with a recent analysis by Robert Reich, the former Treasury Secretary under President Clinton (see February 21, 2012).
Entity Tags: Cal Jillson, Sheldon Adelson, Bobby Jack Perry, USA Today, Willard Mitt Romney, Anthony J. Corrado Jr., American Crossroads, Ruth Marcus, Barack Obama, Tim Pawlenty, Peter Thiel, James Richard (“Rick”) Perry, Harold Simmons, Endorse Liberty, Priorities USA Action, Ron Paul, John Kerry, John Rogers, Jeffrey Katzenberg, Newt Gingrich, Miriam Adelson
Timeline Tags: Civil Liberties, 2012 Elections
President Obama calls Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown University law school student who has been subjected to vociferous attacks and personal smears by conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh and others (see February 29, 2012 and March 1, 2012) after publicly opposing a Republican-backed amendment that would have allowed health care providers and insurers to deny coverage of contraception and other provisions on moral or religious grounds (see March 1, 2012). Obama asks Fluke if she is “okay” after the attacks, thanks her for speaking out on the issue, and tells her that her parents should be proud of her. Fluke takes the call at the MSNBC building in New York, while waiting to be interviewed by MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell. Of the call, she tells Mitchell: “He encouraged me and supported me and thanked me for speaking out about the concerns of American women. What was really personal for me was that he said to tell my parents that they should be proud. And that meant a lot because Rush Limbaugh questioned whether or not my family would be proud of me. So I just appreciated that very much.… He did express his concern for me and wanted to make sure that I was okay, which I am. I’m okay.” She tells Mitchell that the vilification from Limbaugh has been “surreal.” After the call, White House press secretary Jay Carney says Obama made the telephone call because he feels that “the kinds of personal attacks that have been directed her way have been inappropriate. The fact that our political discourse has been debased in many ways is bad enough.” He adds: “It’s even worse when it is directed at a private citizen who is simply expressing her views about public policy.… The president expressed to Sandra Fluke that he was disappointed that she was the subject of these crude—of these personal attacks. I think that it’s fair to say that—reprehensible was my word, but look, these were unfortunate attacks that were leveled against her and the president feels that way.… They were, inappropriate and reprehensible. But the point is the president called her to thank her for speaking out on a matter and doing so with great poise on a matter—on a public policy matter and to express his disappointment that she had been subjected to these kinds of attacks.” [MSNBC, 3/1/2012; Huffington Post, 3/2/2012; CBS News, 3/2/2012] Days later, Obama will tell a Washington Post reporter that he called Fluke in part because he was thinking of his daughters Malia and Sasha. “I don’t know what’s in Rush Limbaugh’s heart, so I’m not going to comment on the sincerity of his apology” (see March 3, 2012 and March 5, 2012), Obama will say. “What I can comment on is the fact that all decent folks can agree that the remarks that were made don’t have any place in the public discourse.” He says he called “because I thought about Malia and Sasha, and one of the things I want them to do as they get older is to engage in issues they care about; even ones I may not agree with them on.… And I don’t want them attacked or called horrible names because they’re being good citizens.” [Washington Post, 3/6/2012] Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich (R-GA) says Obama acted “opportunistically” in making the phone call, stating, “I think the president will opportunistically do anything he can.” [Los Angeles Times, 3/2/2012] Limbaugh continues his attacks on Fluke in the hours after Obama’s telephone call (see March 2, 2012).
In an editorial by its editorial board, the Washington Post unequivocally condemns the recent attacks by conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh on Georgetown University law student Sandra Fluke. Fluke testified in opposition to a House amendment that would have allowed health care providers to deny contraceptive coverage and other health care necessities if they had religious or moral objections (see March 1, 2012). Limbaugh has called Fluke a “slut” and a “prostitute” who is having “so much sex she can’t afford the contraception” and wants the government to pay for it (see February 29, 2012), and said that if Fluke wanted the government to pay her to have sex, then he wanted her to post videos of her having sex online so the public could watch (see March 1, 2012). The Post calls Limbaugh’s “rants” against Fluke “vile,” and says that Limbaugh has “crossed… the line” that differentiates between “standards of civil discourse” and hate speech. The Post continues: “Like other ‘shock jocks,’ Mr. Limbaugh has committed verbal excesses in the past. But in its wanton vulgarity and cruelty, this episode stands out.… We are not calling for censorship. Nor are we suggesting that the ostensible policy issue here—mandatory provision of contraception under health insurance paid for by religious-based institutions such as Georgetown—is a simple one. Those who questioned President Obama’s initial decisions in this area—we among them—were not waging a ‘war on women,’ as Democrats have alleged in strident fundraising appeals. What we are saying is that Mr. Limbaugh has abused his unique position within the conservative media to smear and vilify a citizen engaged in the exercise of her First Amendment rights, and in the process he debased a national political discourse that needs no further debasing. This is not the way a decent citizen behaves, much less a citizen who wields significant de facto power in a major political party. While Republican leaders owe no apology for Mr. Limbaugh’s comments, they do have a responsibility to repudiate them—and him.” [Washington Post, 3/2/2012] Shortly after the editorial is published, Post editorial writer Charles Lane says in a Fox News interview that he cannot “remember a more hateful outburst from a public figure” than Limbaugh’s. He tells Fox News anchor Bret Baier: “I think we should not talk so much about the politics of this and just talk about it on a human level. I have been covering politics and stuff in Washington for 30 years and I can’t remember a more hateful outburst from a public figure that was less possible to justify by any political disagreement. What Rush Limbaugh said was really unworthy of decent political discourse.” [Media Matters, 3/2/2012] The Post editorial is published several hours before Limbaugh’s daily broadcast; the talk show host continues to vilify Fluke in today’s show (see March 2, 2012).
For the third straight day, conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh spends the majority of his show attacking Georgetown University law student Sandra Fluke, who testified in opposition to a House amendment that would have allowed health care providers to deny contraceptive coverage and other health care necessities if they had religious or moral objections (see March 1, 2012). On Wednesday, February 29, Limbaugh called Fluke a “slut” and a “prostitute” who is having “so much sex she can’t afford the contraception” and wants the government to pay for it (see February 29, 2012); on Thursday, Limbaugh continued to smear Fluke’s character and demanded that if she wanted the government to pay her to have sex, then he wanted her to post videos of her having sex online so the public could watch (see March 1, 2012). Today, Limbaugh defends his earlier comments, saying: “This woman comes forth with this frankly hilarious claim that she’s having so much sex, and her buddies with her, that she can’t afford it. And not one person says, ‘Did you ever think about maybe backing off the amount of sex that you have?’” He goes on to say that asking health insurers to cover contraception is “no different than if somebody knocked on my door that I don’t know and said: ‘You know what? I’m out of money. I can’t afford birth-control pills, and I’m supposed to have sex with three guys tonight.’” Limbaugh calls criticism of his call for Fluke to post sex videos online “absurd,” saying his critics should “realize that we’re illustrating absurdity here by being absurd” and that people should “lighten up.” Limbaugh initially refuses to comment on Fluke receiving a telephone call of support from President Obama (see March 2, 2012), saying, “I’m gonna button my lip on that one.” However, in response to Obama’s remark that Fluke’s parents should be proud of her, Limbaugh says that if his daughter had testified that “she’s having so much sex she can’t pay for it and wants a new welfare program to pay for it,” he’d be “embarrassed” and “disconnect the phone,” “go into hiding,” and “hope the media didn’t find me.” He also says, apparently sarcastically: “Oh that’s touching, Obama just called Sandra Fluke to make sure she’s all right. That is so compassionate, what a great guy.” Limbaugh denies he hates women, and defines “misogynist” as “a man who hates women almost as much as women hate women.” He observes that Fluke is having so much sex that her boyfriends are “lined up around the block. They would have been in my day.… [Fluke’s] sex life is active. She’s having sex so frequently that she can’t afford all the birth-control pills that she needs. That’s what she’s saying.” As with his remarks yesterday, he concludes that he, not Fluke, is the victim in this controversy, saying: “And amazingly, when there is the slightest bit of opposition to this new welfare entitlement to be created, that all of a sudden, we hate women, we want them barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, all of these other things. And so, that’s where we are. And so, at the end of this week, I am this person that the women of America are to fear the most.” [Media Matters, 3/1/2012; CBS News, 3/2/2012; Think Progress, 3/2/2012] Liberal blogger David Atkins writes after Limbaugh’s broadcast that judging from his remarks, Limbaugh thinks female birth control pills work like Viagra—the more sex one wishes to have, the more pills one must take. “Anyone remotely familiar with oral contraceptives knows that to work properly, women have to take one pill a day over the course of their monthly cycle. It doesn’t matter if you have unprotected sex once a month or 300 times a month. It’s still the same number of pills, and therefore the same cost. How much sex someone has is utterly irrelevant to the cost of contraception unless they choose to abstain for the entire month.” Atkins writes that Limbaugh is combining ignorance and misogyny in his attacks on Fluke. If indeed Limbaugh does think that female birth control works like Viagra, Atkins writes, “Rush assumes that since it costs him money every time he has sex, it must cost a female college student money, too.” [David Atkins, 3/2/2012]
Conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh attempts to explain his three-day tirade against Georgetown University law student Sandra Fluke (see February 29, 2012, March 1, 2012, and March 2, 2012) and expand on his apology for his comments (see March 3, 2012). In the process, he insults “liberals” and continues his attack on Fluke, though he now reframes his attacks on Fluke in political terms and avoids the personal defamation in which he had previously engaged. “I want to explain why I apologized to Sandra Fluke in the statement that was released on Saturday,” he says. “I’ve read all the theories from all sides and, frankly, they are all wrong. I don’t expect—and I know you don’t, either—morality or intellectual honesty from the left. They’ve demonstrated over and over a willingness to say or do anything to advance their agenda. It’s what they do. It’s what we fight against here every day. But this is the mistake I made. In fighting them on this issue last week, I became like them. Against my own instincts, against my own knowledge, against everything I know to be right and wrong I descended to their level when I used those two words [‘slut’ and ‘prostitute’] to describe Sandra Fluke. That was my error. I became like them, and I feel very badly about that. I’ve always tried to maintain a very high degree of integrity and independence on this program. Nevertheless, those two words were inappropriate. They were uncalled for. They distracted from the point that I was actually trying to make, and I again sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for using those two words to describe her. I do not think she is either of those two words. I did not think last week that she is either of those two words. The apology to her over the weekend was sincere. It was simply for using inappropriate words in a way I never do, and in so doing, I became like the people we oppose. I ended up descending to their level. It’s important not to be like them, ever, particularly in fighting them. The old saw, you never descend to the level of your opponent or they win. That was my error last week. But the apology was heartfelt. The apology was sincere. And, as you will hear as I go on here, it was not about anything else. No ulterior motive. No speaking in code. No double entendre or intention. Pure, simple, heartfelt. That’s why I apologized to Sandra Fluke on Saturday, ‘cause all the theories, all the experts are wrong.… Now, all of this is what I should have told you last week, ‘cause this is what happened. I use satire. I use absurdity to illustrate the absurd. The story at the Cybercast News Service characterized a portion of her testimony as sounding like (based on her own financial figures) she was engaging in sexual activity so often she couldn’t afford it. I focused on that because it was simple trying to persuade people, change people’s minds.” He continues attacking Fluke for her attempts to persuade Georgetown University to include contraception in its student health insurance coverage. He calls her a “longtime birth control activist” who went back to law school in order to engage in demagoguery at Georgetown over the contraception issue, and questions the testimony she was prepared to offer before a House committee in support of insurer-paid contraception coverage (see March 1, 2012). “In fact, she told stories less about birth control as a social tool (which was, of course, the left’s true agenda) and more about birth control as a medication for treating other conditions, such as pregnancy,” Limbaugh says. “To the left, pregnancy is a disease. If you’re listening to me for the first time, you may say, ‘Well, that’s crazy.’ It’s not. They treat pregnancy as a disease for political purposes. All of this, folks, is political. Sandra Fluke gave vague examples based on unnamed friends who she says couldn’t afford birth control to treat medical conditions they had, since Georgetown University wouldn’t pay for them. Georgetown paid for all of their other medical treatment, but it wouldn’t pay for the birth control pills that these doctors prescribed should they be necessary—or so she says. We still don’t know who any of these friends of hers are, these other women, and we don’t know what happened to them. Her testimony was hearsay, and it was unprovable.” He says to Fluke, “If birth control insurance is important to you as an enrolling student, and you find out that Georgetown doesn’t offer it, you might want to attend (or work at) a school that isn’t run by Catholics.” Fluke and others “intentionally target schools like Georgetown to advance an agenda of ultimately forcing them to abandon their religious beliefs,” Limbaugh says. “All of this is to serve Obama’s agenda (see March 2, 2012). The agenda he worked all summer on. He abandoned it only when America stood up, united, and this said they would not tolerate tearing down religion to increase government’s control over our lives.… They [Democrats] use Sandra Fluke to create a controversy. Sandra Fluke used them to advance her agenda, which is to force a religious institution to abandon their principles in order to meet hers.” [Reuters, 3/5/2012; Rush Limbaugh, 3/5/2012] Think Progress reporter Alex Seitz-Wald observes, “While this is perhaps some progress from Limbaugh’s overtly sexist slurs of last week, it’s hardly the words of a man genuinely sorry for his ad hominem attacks on a women’s health advocate.” [Think Progress, 3/5/2012]
Author and political science professor Richard Hasen provides data showing that the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision (see January 21, 2010) is directly responsible for a huge rise in corporate “outside” spending on behalf of political campaigns. Recent arguments in defense of the decision have said that “super PACs,” the “independent” political entities that take corporate, labor union, and individual donations for the purpose of making television ads in support of, or opposition to, a particular candidate or party (see March 26, 2010, June 23, 2011, November 23, 2011, January 4, 2012, January 4, 2012, and February 20, 2012) were not created by the Court’s decision, and therefore Citizens United cannot be held responsible for the enormous surge in spending since the decision was rendered. The arguments equate older “527” organizations (see 2000 - 2005, March 2000 and After, and June 30, 2000) and the enormous donations made on their behalf (see January - November 2004) with the activities of super PACs after the Citizens United decision. “The purpose of the drumbeat appears to be to insulate the Supreme Court from further criticism of the Frankenstein’s monster they’ve created,” Hasen writes. He shows that the two types of organizations—527s and super PACs—are quite different. “It is true that before Citizens United people could spend unlimited sums on independent advertising directly supporting or opposing candidates,” Hasen explains. “But that money had to be spent by the individual directly. It could not be given to a political action committee, which had an individual contribution cap of $5,000 and could not take corporate or union funding. In many cases, wealthy individuals did not want to spend their own money on advertising, which would say, ‘Paid for by Sheldon Adelson’ or ‘Paid for by George Soros,’ so fewer of these ads were made. The only way to avoid having your name plastered across every ad was to give to the 527s, which claimed they could take unlimited money from individuals (including, sometimes, corporate and labor union money) on grounds that they were not PACs under the FEC’s definition of PACs. These organizations were somewhat successful, but a legal cloud always hung over them.” After Citizens United, courts and the Federal Election Commission ruled that super PACs could collect unlimited sums from corporations, unions, and individuals for unlimited independent spending. Hasen writes: “The theory was that, per Citizens United, if independent spending cannot corrupt, then contributions to fund independent spending cannot corrupt either. (I am quite critical of this theory about corruption, but that’s besides the point here.) So what was once of questionable legality before the court’s decision was fully blessed after Citizens United.” Using data from the Center for Responsive Politics and its OpenSecrets (.org) Web site, Hasen compares spending during presidential election years.
1992: Wealthy individuals, organizations, and corporations are allowed to spend unlimited sums (see January 30, 1976). Outside spending in that campaign, up through early March 1992, was about $1.5 million.
2000: The law remains essentially unchanged. By March 2000, outside spending was around $2.6 million.
2004: With the advent of “527” groups, by March 2004, outside spending rose to $14 million.
2008: Under similar conditions as 2004, by March 2008, outside spending rose to $37.5 million.
2012: In the first presidential campaign year after the Citizens United decision, spending as of early March 2012 is over $88 million.
2012 outside spending is at 234 percent of 2008 spending, and 628 percent of 2004 outside spending. Hasen writes, “If this was not caused by Citizens United, we have a mighty big coincidence on our hands.” Hasen expects outside spending to rise dramatically once the Republican primary is concluded and the presumptive Republican nominee begins campaigning against President Obama. “Wait until the super PACs and other organizations start raising their unlimited sums for the general election,” Hasen warns. “Further, lots of groups are now using 501(c) organizations rather than super PACs for their campaign spending, in an effort to hide their donors.” Data from the Center for Responsive Politics shows that during the 2010 midterm elections, spending from groups that used the law to hide their donors rose from 1 percent in 2006 to 47 percent. Moreover, “501(c) non-profit spending increased from 0 percent of total spending by outside groups in 2006 to 42 percent in 2010.” And 72 percent “of political advertising spending by outside groups in 2010 came from sources that were prohibited from spending money in 2006.” The record-breaking spending in the 2008 presidential election—$301 million—was eclipsed in the first post-Citizens United election, the 2010 midterms, when corporate and other outside spending topped out at $304.6 million. Hasen writes: “It was an incredible number for a midterm election season. Why did that happen? Citizens United was decided early in 2010.” [Slate, 3/9/2012]
The liberal news Web site Think Progress cites the two-year anniversary of the SpeechNow.org v. Federal Elections Commission ruling (see March 26, 2010), which allowed the creation of “super PACs,” or “independent expenditure” organizations. Think Progress writes, “Combined with the unlimited corporate expenditures enabled by the Supreme Court’s earlier Citizens United decision (see January 21, 2010), this case brought the campaign finance system to where it is now: more than $80 million spent already this cycle by super PACs and more than two-thirds of their funding coming from just 46 rich donors.” $67 million of the $80 million spent so far comes from 46 extraordinarily wealthy citizens. Almost all of them are owners and/or senior executives of oil and energy companies, hoteliers, and financial executives. Almost all are white and male. And almost all of them contribute to conservative and Republican-supporting groups (see February 21, 2012). John Dunbar of the Center for Public Integrity says, “We’re looking at a singularly weird phenomenon.” The super PAC supporting Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney (R-MA), himself a former financial services CEO, is primarily funded by Wall Street executives, mostly private equity and hedge fund executives. One major Romney contributor, hedge fund manager John Paulson, has contributed $1 million. Paulson made enormous profits in 2008 by investing funds in ventures based on the mortgage industry collapse. Viveca Novak of the Center for Responsive Politics says, “The financial sector is one where there’s a lot of money, and it’s a sector with which Romney is very familiar, so it’s not surprising that it would be a big source of contributions.” Other Republican candidates such as Newt Gingrich (R-GA), Rick Santorum (R-PA), and Ron Paul (R-TX) also garner big contributions from billionaires. Gingrich is primarily funded by casino owner Sheldon Adelson, who makes much of his money in Las Vegas and China’s Macau. Paul has the backing of billionaire Peter Thiel, a Silicon Valley venture capitalist, and Santorum is primarily supported by billionaire Foster Friess (see February 16-17, 2012)—arguably all three candidates’ campaigns are being supported by single donors who decide whether their campaigns will continue by virtue of granting or withholding donations. Attorney Paul S. Ryan of Campaign Legal Center says: “We’ve had a small group of donors maintain the viability of certain candidates. It’s an Alice in Wonderland situation. It defies logic.… American elections are funded by a very narrow range of special interests, and that has the effect of making our democracy look a lot more like a plutocracy.” Thomas Mann of the Brookings Institution says it is sometimes difficult to discern the motivations behind billionaires’ funding of certain candidates, but billionaire Harold Simmons, who made his fortune in leveraged buyouts and corporate takeovers, says he is funding conservative super PACs because President Obama is a “socialist.” The Wall Street Journal has noted that Simmons and others like him would profit greatly if their industries were less regulated by government agencies. If Republicans do well in the November elections, Simmons told the Journal that “we can block that crap [regulations].” Conservative super PACs are far outstripping the super PAC backing the Obama re-election campaign as well as other Democrats running for office. Mann says, “The pool of billionaires who can throw tens of millions into the game—and are inclined to do so—is concentrated on the right.” Obama has so far been reluctant to get involved in his super PAC’s fundraising activities, but recent statements by his campaign indicate that White House aides will try to help Priorities USA Action, the Obama super PAC, raise more money in the near future. Obama campaign manager Jim Messina says the Obama campaign is in danger of being overwhelmed by the fundraising from conservative billionaires. CNN states that the most notable effect of super PAC funding might not be on the presidential race, but on “downticket” races for Congress. Much smaller outlays of super PAC money can have extraordinary impacts on such races. Dunbar says, “An individual donor and a super PAC could go off to some district in Kentucky and just completely destroy some candidate because he doesn’t favor what’s good for your business.” [Think Progress, 3/26/2012; CNN, 3/26/2012; Huffington Post, 6/16/2012]
Entity Tags: Jim Messina, Harold Simmons, Viveca Novak, Wall Street Journal, Willard Mitt Romney, CNN, Barack Obama, Thomas Mann, Think Progress (.org), US Supreme Court, Foster Friess, Newt Gingrich, John Paulson, John Dunbar, Sheldon Adelson, Ron Paul, Paul S. Ryan, Rick Santorum, Priorities USA Action, Peter Thiel
Timeline Tags: Civil Liberties, 2012 Elections
American Energy Alliance logo. [Source: NJI Media]The press learns that a recent $3.6 million television ad campaign attacking President Obama on gasoline prices was funded by the oil billionaires Charles and David Koch (see 1977-Present, 1979-1980, 1981-2010, 1984 and After, Late 2004, May 6, 2006, April 15, 2009, May 29, 2009, December 6, 2009, November 2009, July 3-4, 2010, August 28, 2010, August 30, 2010, September 24, 2010, January 5, 2011, October 4, 2011 and February 14, 2011). The ad campaign was launched by the American Energy Alliance (AEA), the political arm of the Institute for Energy Research. Both organizations are heavily funded by the Koch brothers and their donor network, though information about their finances is sketchy, as the groups do not have to disclose their donor rolls to the public. The two groups are run by Tom Pyle, a former lobbyist for Koch Industries. Pyle regularly attends what news Web site Politico calls “the mega-donor summits organized by the Koch brothers.” Koch-funded organizations intend to spend well over $200 million on behalf of conservative groups before the November elections. The AEA ad claims that the Obama administration is responsible for the recent surge in gasoline prices. Democratic National Committee (DNC) spokesman Brad Woodhouse says that the Koch brothers are “funding yet another shadowy outside group to defend the interests of Big Oil and protect their own tax breaks and profits with [Republican presumptive presidential nominee] Mitt Romney being the ultimate beneficiary.” The DNC and the Obama campaign have targeted the Koch brothers in previous statements, calling them some of the “secretive oil billionaires” funding the Romney campaign. AEA spokesman Benjamin Cole accuses the DNC and the Obama campaign of playing “shadowy” politics intended “to delay, deny, and deceive the American public about the president’s record on energy prices.” The AEA ad is not connected to the Romney campaign, Cole says, and adds that the ad campaign is not intended to benefit Romney, stating, “[W]e have been public and unashamed of criticizing Mitt Romney or any candidate for office, Republican or Democrat, that doesn’t support free market energy solutions.” Cole refuses to confirm that the Koch brothers are financing the ad campaign, instead saying: “People ask if Koch is behind this ad. There is only one person behind this ad and it is President Barack Obama.” The Koch brothers are becoming increasingly involved in the 2012 presidential campaign, sending representatives like Marc Short to network with former Bush advisor Karl Rove, who runs the super PAC American Crossroads and its sibling Crossroads GPS. [Politico, 3/29/2012]
Entity Tags: Karl C. Rove, Barack Obama, American Energy Alliance, Benjamin Cole, Brad Woodhouse, Obama administration, Charles Koch, David Koch, Thomas Pyle, Willard Mitt Romney, Marc Short
Timeline Tags: Civil Liberties, 2012 Elections
President Obama speaks on the topic of clean energy in front of the Copper Mountain Solar Project in Boulder City, Nevada, in March 2012. [Source: CleanTechnica (.org)]An analysis by Reuters claims that the $90 billion investment made by the federal government to generate jobs in the field of clean energy (see February 2009) has not produced as many jobs as initially touted. In March 2012, President Obama spoke in front of the Copper Mountain Solar Project in Boulder City, Nevada, which uses 1 million solar panels to power 17,000 homes. The facility only employs 10 people. The green initiative has put people to work retrofitting over a million homes to lower heating and cooling costs, and energy generation from solar and wind sources has nearly doubled since 2008. But some say the program has not created enough jobs. Critics say the program was expected to lower the unemployment rate, currently hovering above 8 percent, and say it has not done so. Supporters say the administration promised too much in the short term and fear a backlash that might undermine support for clean-energy policies across the board. Clean energy specialist Mark Muro of the Brookings Institution says, “All of this stuff is extraordinarily worthy for driving long-term economic transformation but extremely inappropriate to sell as a short-term job program.” Janet Bluman, head of the Foundation for an Independent Tomorrow, says, “From my perspective it makes more sense for us to arm our clients with the basic skills, rather than saying, ‘By golly, you will do something in the green economy or you won’t work.’” Bluman claims that her organization, which trains people for jobs in the Las Vegas area, has seen positions in trucking and accounting go unfilled because training money had been earmarked for green efforts. The federal program earmarked some $500 million for job training, and has employed some 20,000 people, far short of its stated goal. Republicans say the clean-energy program is merely a way for the Obama administration to give money to Obama’s friends (see October 15, 2012). GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney has claimed, “[Obama] handed out tens of billions of dollars to green energy companies, including his friends and campaign contributors at companies like Solyndra that are now bankrupt.” Romney and other Republicans have not advanced proof of their allegations. Supporters say that in the long term, clean energy will “create a bounty of stable, middle-class jobs and fill the gap left by manufacturing work that has moved overseas,” as Reuters reports. White House officials say that there is more to the clean energy program than creating jobs. “We have a record of success that has created tens of thousands of jobs and is ensuring that America is not ceding these industries to countries like China,” White House spokesman Clark Stevens says. “Thanks to the investments we’ve made, these industries will continue to grow, along with the jobs they create.” Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA), an opponent of the program, says: “The green jobs-training program just didn’t work. It was a poor investment of tax dollars.” Darren Devine of the College of Southern Nevada says: “Will it add a significant number of jobs, enough to make a real dent in our unemployment? No, I don’t see that happening.” What it will do is help the country reduce its energy consumption, lower the amount of carbon dioxide being pumped into the atmosphere, and help create jobs in the clean-energy and other fields, such as health care, education, and technology. [Reuters, 4/13/2012]
The Washington Post reports that an anonymous donor gave the political advocacy organization Crossroads GPS $10 million to run television ads attacking President Obama and Democratic policies, part of the almost $77 million in secret donations the group has received. It also received another $10 million from an anonymous donor to use during the 2010 midterm elections. The Post says the donations are emblematic of “the money race that is defining the 2012 presidential campaign.” According to data provided by the Center for Public Integrity, $76.8 million of the money raised in 2010 and 2011—62 percent—was secretly contributed to Crossroads GPS. The money came from fewer than 100 individual donors, which works out as an average donation of over $750,000; 90 percent of its donors gave over $1 million in individual donations. Crossroads GPS is a conservative nonprofit 501(c)(4) group co-founded by former Bush administration political advisor Karl Rove. The information about the donations comes from draft tax returns that provide a limited insight into the donations received by the group. Under the law (see January 21, 2010 and March 26, 2010), Crossroads GPS is not required to identify its donors. The Post says it is possible both donations came from the same source, but it has no way to confirm that supposition.
Explanations and Criticisms - Crossroads GPS is the sister organization of American Crossroads, the super PAC also co-founded by Rove. The two groups share the same president (Steven Law), the same spokesperson, the same staffers, and the same mailing address. Together, they have raised $100 million for the 2012 election cycle and have already run millions of dollars of television ads. Crossroads GPS spokesperson Jonathan Collegio says that the organization “advocates for free markets, free trade, limited government, and personal responsibility.” The group’s donors are “individuals and businesses that support our vision of lower taxes and smaller government. We believe President Obama’s tax and regulatory policies are strangling economic growth through excessive regulation and government spending that is crowding out private investment.” Bill Allison of the Sunlight Foundation, which advocates for transparency in government and politics, says that the two groups are “certainly not a grassroots movement.… These donors can have a very disproportionate effect on politics, and the fact that we don’t know who they are and what kind of favors they will ask for is very troubling.” Allison speculates that some of the anonymous Crossroads GPS donors may be large public corporations, which according to the Post have “for the most part… not donated to super PACs or other groups that disclose donors.” American Crossroads is required to disclose its donors, which include Texas billionaire Harold Simmons ($12 million) and Texas home builder Bob Perry ($2.5 million). The Republican Jewish Coalition has identified itself on its tax returns as a donor to Crossroads GPS, having given $4 million to the organization. (Crossroads GPS donated back $250,000.) Sunlight and other critics have questioned Crossroads GPS’s status as a nonprofit “social welfare” group. Under IRS regulations, such groups cannot have as their primary purpose influencing elections, but they can spend up to half their money on political campaigning. The group has asked the IRS to grant it tax-exempt status. Critics have asked the IRS to revoke the group’s nonprofit status, saying that it is patently a political organization. A complaint filed by the Campaign Law Center and Democracy 21 in December 2011 said in part, “We are deeply concerned about the failure of the IRS to take any public steps to show that the agency is prepared to enforce the tax laws.” Crossroads GPS claims it has spent $17 million on direct election activities and $27 million on “grassroots issue advocacy,” including a $16 million expenditure in the summer of 2011 on ads pushing against tax increases during debate on raising the debt ceiling (see August 5, 2011). It has also given some $16 million to a network of conservative advocacy groups, including $4 million to Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), $3.7 million to the National Federation of Independent Business, and $2 million to the National Right to Life Committee. According to Crossroads GPS, all of its donation recipients are instructed to use the funds “only for exempt purposes and not for political expenditures.” In 2010, ATR spent $4 million—almost exactly the amount it received from Crossroads GPS—on political ads in 2010. Melanie Sloan of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) says that even if ATR did not spend the Crossroads GPS money on ads, the donation allowed it to divert $4 million of its own money to election ads. “It’s the same amount—does that seem likely to be a coincidence to you?” she asks a reporter. An ATR spokesperson says the Crossroads GPS donation was “in support of our work fighting tax hikes.” [Washington Post, 4/13/2012; iWatch News, 4/20/2012; Think Progress, 4/20/2012]
High Compensation - Steven Law, the former deputy secretary of labor under President Bush and the former general counsel for the US Chamber of Commerce who serves as the president of both organizations, pulled down $1.1 million in salaries and bonuses for the two groups. Collegio explains the high compensation to a reporter, saying: “Crossroads is a serious organization. Free market conservative donors know that hiring top CEO talent requires real compensation.” [iWatch News, 4/20/2012]
Entity Tags: American Crossroads, National Right to Life Committee, Karl C. Rove, Barack Obama, American Crossroads GPS, Washington Post, National Federation of Independent Business, Americans for Tax Reform, Melanie Sloan, Campaign Law Center, Bill Allison, Jonathan Collegio, Steven Law, Harold Simmons, Center for Public Integrity, Democracy 21, Republican Jewish Coalition, Bobby Jack Perry
Timeline Tags: Civil Liberties, 2012 Elections
Some sources believe Romney may consider John Bolton for Secretary of State if elected president. [Source: Getty Images / CNN]Journalist Ari Berman, of the liberal magazine The Nation, writes that presumptive Republican presidential Mitt Romney (R-MA) seems to be relying on a large number of neoconservatives to help him formulate his foreign policy stance for the election. Berman believes it is safe to assume that Romney will appoint many of his neoconservative advisors to powerful positions in his administration should he win the November election. Berman writes: “Given Romney’s well-established penchant for flip-flopping and opportunism, it’s difficult to know what he really believes on any issue, including foreign affairs (the campaign did not respond to a request for comment). But a comprehensive review of his statements during the primary and his choice of advisers suggests a return to the hawkish, unilateral interventionism of the George W. Bush administration should he win the White House in November.” Conservative Christian leader Richard Land has said that Romney could shore up his sagging credibility with conservatives by “pre-naming” some key Cabinet selections: former Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) as Attorney General, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) as US ambassador to the United Nations, and former State Department official John Bolton as Secretary of State. Berman calls the prospect of those appointments “terrifying” and “more plausible than one might think.” Neoconservative blogger Jennifer Rubin recently wrote for the Washington Post that “[m]any conservatives hope” Bolton will accept “a senior national security post in a Romney administration.” For his point, Bolton has endorsed Romney, and has campaigned on his behalf. Romney is not well versed in foreign policy affairs, Berman writes, noting that in 2008 the presidential campaign of John McCain (R-AZ) found that at the time “Romney’s foreign affairs resume is extremely thin, leading to credibility problems.” Romney suffered the criticism of being “too liberal” in 2008, and in 2011-12 attempted to refute that criticism by publicly aligning himself with Bolton and other neoconservatives. Brian Katulis of the liberal Center for American Progress has said, “When you read the op-eds and listen to the speeches, it sounds like Romney’s listening to the John Bolton types more than anyone else.” [Washington Post, 3/13/2012; Nation, 5/21/2012]
The Project for the New American Century - Bolton and seven other Romney advisors are signers of a letter drafted by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), an influential neoconservative advocacy group (see June 3, 1997 and September 2000) that urged both the Clinton and Bush administrations to attack Iraq (see January 26, 1998, February 19, 1998 and May 29, 1998). (The PNAC is defunct, but was replaced by a similar advocacy group, the Foreign Policy Initiative, or FPI—see Before March 25, 2009). PNAC co-founder Eliot Cohen, who served as counsel for Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice from 2007-2009, wrote the foreward to Romney’s foreign policy white paper, entitled “An American Century.” Cohen has called the war on terror “World War IV” (see November 20, 2001), and helped push the Bush administration into going to war with Iraq after the 9/11 bombings. In 2009, Cohen reiterated his 2001 call for the US to overthrow the government of Iran (see November 20, 2001). Another PNAC co-founder, FPI’s Robert Kagan, a longtime advocate for widespread war in the Middle East (see October 29, 2001), helped Romney formulate his foreign policy. Romney’s foreign policy stance is based largely on negative attacks on the Obama administration, which it accuses of kowtowing to foreign governments, and a massive military buildup. [Washington Post, 10/9/2011; Nation, 5/21/2012]
Bush Administration Officials' Involvement - Many former Bush administration officials are involved with Romney’s foreign policy. Robert G. Joseph, a former National Security Council official who is primarily responsible for having then-President Bush claim that Iraq had tried to buy enriched uranium from Niger (see January 26 or 27, 2003), former Bush administration spokesman and FPI founder Dan Senor (see October 2, 2005), and former Defense Department official Eric Edelman (see July 16-20, 2007) are prominent members of Romney’s advisory team. Preble says of Romney’s foreign policy advisors: “I can’t name a single Romney foreign policy adviser who believes the Iraq War was a mistake. Two-thirds of the American people do believe the Iraq War was a mistake. So he has willingly chosen to align himself with that one-third of the population right out of the gate.” Edelman, like others on the Romney team, believes that the US should attack Iran, a position Romney himself apparently holds. Senor serves as a conduit between the Romney campaign and Israel’s far right, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Recently, Senor posted the following on Twitter: “Mitt-Bibi will be the new Reagan-Thatcher.” Lawrence Wilkerson, the chief of staff for then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, has said the Republican Party “has not a clue” how to extricate the US from its “state of interminable war,” and apparently little appetite for such extrication. “In fact, they want to deepen it, widen it and go further, on Chinese and Japanese dollars.” The influence of far-right neoconservatives “astonishe[s]” Wilkerson. Christopher Preble, a foreign policy expert for the Cato Institute, says that neoconservatives have remained influential even after the Iraq debacle because they have rewritten history. “They’ve crafted this narrative around the surge (see January 10, 2007), claiming Iraq was, in fact, a success. They’ve ridden that ever since.”
Huge Spending Increases for Defense, Possible Recession - If Romney follows his current statements, a Romney administration under the tutelage of his neoconservative advisors would usher in a new era of massive defense spending increases. He advocates spending a minimum of 4 percent of the nation’s GDP (Gross Domestic Product) to increase spending on defense, which would increase the Pentagon’s budget by over $200 billion in 2016. That is 38% more than the Obama administration plans to spend on defense. Romney would pay for that increase with severe cuts in domestic spending. Fiscal Times columnist Merrill Goozner has written: “Romney’s proposal to embark on a second straight decade of escalating military spending would be the first time in American history that war preparation and defense spending had increased as a share of overall economic activity for such an extended period. When coupled with the 20 percent cut in taxes he promises, it would require shrinking domestic spending to levels not seen since the Great Depression—before programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid began.” Goozner wrote that Romney’s spending plan “would likely throw the US economy back into recession.” The proposed huge spending increases are in part the product of the Defending Defense coalition, a joint project of the FPI, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), and the Heritage Foundation. [Fiscal Times, 3/7/2012; Nation, 5/21/2012]
Cofer Black and Enhanced National Security - Romney’s counterterrorism advisor is J. Cofer Black, a former CIA operative and Bush-era security official. Black presented a plan to invade Afghanistan two days after the 9/11 attacks, and claimed that al-Qaeda could be defeated and the world made secure from terrorism in a matter of weeks (see September 13, 2001). Black was fired from the CIA in 2002 for publicly criticizing the Bush administration’s failure to capture or kill Osama bin Laden (see May 17, 2002). In 2005, Black became a senior official for the private mercenary firm Blackwater (see February 2005). He has been a Romney advisor since 2007 (see April 2007). Black advised Romney not to consider waterboarding as torture, and has touted his CIA experience with that agency’s illegal “extraordinary rendition” program, which sent prisoners to foreign countries for abuse and torture. Romney relies on Black for security assessments of security assessments of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt and Iran, including Iran’s nuclear program. Preble says, “Romney’s likely to be in the mold of George W. Bush when it comes to foreign policy if he were elected.” Berman writes that “[o]n some key issues, like Iran, Romney and his team are to the right of Bush.” Berman goes on to write that if Romney adheres to his statements on the campaign trail, “a Romney presidency would move toward war against Iran; closely align Washington with the Israeli right; leave troops in Afghanistan at least until 2014 and refuse to negotiate with the Taliban; reset the Obama administration’s ‘reset’ with Russia; and pursue a Reagan-like military buildup at home.”
Moderates Sidelined - The moderates on Romney’s team have been shunted aside in favor of the hardliners. Mitchell Reiss, Romney’s principal foreign policy advisor in 2008 and a former State Department official under Powell, no longer enjoys favored access to the candidate. In December 2011 Romney publicly contradicted Reiss’s advocacy of US negotiations with the Taliban, instead advocating the total military defeat of the Taliban and criticizing the Obama administration’s plan to “draw down” US troops from Afghanistan. Vice President Joseph Biden has said that Romney and his neoconservative advisors “see the world through a cold war prism that is totally out of touch with the realities of the twenty-first century.” Romney began tacking to the right during the early days of the Republican primaries, aligning himself with candidates such as Gingrich, Herman Cain (R-GA), and Michele Bachmann (R-MN), and away from moderate candidate Jon Huntsman (R-UT) and isolationist candidate Ron Paul (R-TX). Heather Hurlburt of the centrist National Security Network says: “The foreign policy experts who represent old-school, small-c conservatism and internationalism have been pushed out of the party. Who in the Republican Party still listens to Brent Scowcroft?” (see October 2004). Wilkerson says moderate conservatives such as Powell and Scowcroft are “very worried about their ability to restore moderation and sobriety to the party’s foreign and domestic policies.” Berman writes, “In 2012 Obama is running as Bush 41 and Romney as Bush 43.” [Nation, 5/21/2012]
Entity Tags: Cofer Black, Christopher Preble, Richard Land, Project for the New American Century, Obama administration, Bush administration (43), Robert G. Joseph, Robert Kagan, Ron Paul, Willard Mitt Romney, Ari Berman, Barack Obama, Benjamin Netanyahu, Brent Scowcroft, Brian Katulis, Mitt Romney presidential campaign (2012), Mitchell Reiss, Rick Santorum, Merrill Goozner, Foreign Policy Initiative, Eric Edelman, Michele Bachmann, Eliot A. Cohen, Dan Senor, Colin Powell, Defending Defense, George W. Bush, Newt Gingrich, John R. Bolton, Jennifer Rubin, John McCain presidential campaign (2008), Herman Cain, Heather Hurlburt, Jon Huntsman, Lawrence Wilkerson, Joseph Biden
Timeline Tags: 2012 Elections
Jeffrey Toobin in 2007. [Source: Wikimedia]Author and political pundit, Jeffrey Toobin, publishes an in-depth article for the New Yorker showing that Chief Justice John Roberts engineered the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court decision (see January 21, 2010), moving it from a case that could well have been considered and decided on a relatively narrow basis to a sweeping decision that reformed the nation’s campaign finance structure. Toobin writes that the underlying issue was quite narrow: the conservative advocacy organization Citizens United (CU) wanted to run a documentary attacking presidential candidate Hillary Clinton (D-NY) on “video on demand” cable broadcast (see January 10-16, 2008). Under the McCain-Feingold campaign finance legislation (see March 27, 2002 and December 10, 2003), the Federal Election Commission (FEC) disallowed the broadcast because it would come 30 days or less before primary elections. CU challenged the decision in court (see January 10-16, 2008, March 24, 2008, March 15, 2009, June 29, 2009, and September 9, 2009). [New Yorker, 5/21/2012] Toobin’s article is an excerpt from his forthcoming book The Oath: The Obama White House vs. The Supreme Court. It is dated May 21, but appears on the New Yorker’s Web site on May 14. [Tom Goldstein, 5/14/2012]
Oral Arguments - During the initial arguments (see March 15, 2009), attorney Theodore Olson, the former solicitor general for the Bush administration, argued a narrow case: that McCain-Feingold’s prohibitions only applied to television commercials, not to full-length documentary films. Olson argued, “This sort of communication was not something that Congress intended to prohibit.” Toobin writes: “Olson’s argument indicated that there was no need for the Court to declare any part of the law unconstitutional, or even to address the First Amendment implications of the case. Olson simply sought a judgment that McCain-Feingold did not apply to documentaries shown through video on demand.… If the justices had resolved the case as Olson had suggested, today Citizens United might well be forgotten—a narrow ruling on a remote aspect of campaign-finance law.” However, Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the most vocal opponents of campaign finance restrictions on the Court (see September 26, 1986, December 15, 1986, March 27, 1990, June 26, 1996, June 16, 2003, December 10, 2003, and June 25, 2007), seemed disappointed in the limited nature of Olson’s argument, Toobin writes. The oral arguments expand the case far beyond Olson’s initial position. Olson’s initial intention was to narrow the case so that the Court would not have to expand its scope to find in favor of CU.
Change of Scope - Ironically, the government’s lead lawyer, Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart, may well have changed the scope of the case in favor of a broader interpretation. Traditionally, lawyers with the solicitor general (SG)‘s office are far more straightforward with the Court than is usual in advocacy-driven cases. Toobin writes: “The solicitor general’s lawyers press their arguments in a way that hews strictly to existing precedent. They don’t hide unfavorable facts from the justices. They are straight shooters.” Stewart, who had clerked for former Justice Harry Blackmun and a veteran of the SG office since 1993, is well aware of the requirements of Court arguments. But, Toobin writes, Stewart fell into a trap, prompted by Justice Samuel Alito’s pointed questioning about the government’s ability to ban or censor printed materials—i.e. books—under McCain-Feingold—and follow-up questions by Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy, that led him to claim incorrectly that the government could indeed censor books under the law. Stewart’s incorrect assertion gave Roberts and his colleagues the chance to overturn McCain-Feingold on the grounds of the First Amendment right to freedom of speech.
Second Arguments - The second arguments were held on September 9, 2009 (see September 9, 2009). The concept of “money equals speech” goes back at least as far as the 1976 Buckley decision (see January 30, 1976), and the five conservative justices were poised to stretch that definition much farther than has previously been done.
Majority Opinion - Toobin writes that Roberts’s decision was then to decide “how much he wanted to help the Republican Party. Roberts’s choice was: a lot.” Roberts assigned the opinion to Kennedy, the “swing” justice who had already written an expansive opinion gutting almost a century’s worth of campaign finance legislation. Kennedy tends to “swing wildly in one direction or another,” Toobin writes, “an extremist—of varied enthusiasms.” In the area of campaign finance, he has consistently “swung” to the conservative side of the argument. He is, Toobin writes, “extremely receptive to arguments that the government had unduly restricted freedom of speech—especially in the area of campaign finance.” Moreover, Kennedy enjoys writing controversial and “high-profile” opinions. Toobin says that Roberts’s choice of Kennedy to write the opinion was clever: Roberts came onto the Court promising to conduct himself with judicial modesty and a respect for precedent. Kennedy, with his draft opinion at the ready, was a better choice to write an opinion that lacked either modesty or a respect for Court precedence. Roberts, Toobin writes, “obtained a far-reaching result without leaving his own fingerprints.” Kennedy, in an often-eloquent opinion that did not deal with the gritty reality of the Citizens United case, stated that any restraint of money in a campaign risked infringing on free speech. “Speech is an essential mechanism of democracy, for it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people. The right of citizens to inquire, to hear, to speak, and to use information to reach consensus is a precondition to enlightened self-government and a necessary means to protect it.… By taking the right to speak from some and giving it to others, the government deprives the disadvantaged person or class of the right to use speech to strive to establish worth, standing, and respect for the speaker’s voice. The government may not by these means deprive the public of the right and privilege to determine for itself what speech and speakers are worthy of consideration. The First Amendment protects speech and speaker, and the ideas that flow from each.” Kennedy also reaffirmed the Court’s perception that corporations deserve the same First Amendment protections enjoyed by individuals. Kennedy’s opinion found, in Toobin’s words, that “[t]he Constitution required that all corporations, for-profit and nonprofit alike, be allowed to spend as much as they wanted, anytime they wanted, in support of the candidates of their choosing.” One of the only provisions remaining in McCain-Feingold after Kennedy’s opinion was the ban on direct corporate contributions to candidates.
Fiery Dissent from 'Liberal' Stevens - Toobin reminds readers that the elder statesman of the “liberal” wing of the Court at the time, John Paul Stevens, is a “moderate Midwestern Republican,” one of the last of a “vanishing political tradition.” Though Stevens’s views have migrated left on some issues, such as the death penalty, Toobin writes that the perception of Stevens as a Court liberal is mostly because of the Court’s steady progression to the right. Toobin writes that the 90-year-old Stevens has grown dispirited in recent years, as the conservative wing of the Court, led by Scalia, Alito, and Roberts with Clarence Thomas and often Kennedy in tow, overturned one Court precedent after another. “The course of Citizens United represented everything that offended Stevens most about the Roberts Court,” Toobin writes. Much of Stevens’s objections to the Roberts Court are rooted in procedure; he is deeply troubled by the Citizens United case being transformed by Roberts and his conservative colleagues from a narrowly focused case about a single McCain-Feingold provision to what Toobin calls “an assault on a century of federal laws and precedents. To Stevens, it was the purest kind of judicial activism.” Stevens wrote in his angry dissent, “Five justices were unhappy with the limited nature of the case before us, so they changed the case to give themselves an opportunity to change the law.” A simple change in the McCain-Feingold law to disallow its application to full-length documentaries the CU case was sparked by, or even to nonprofit organizations such as CU, would have been appropriate, Stevens wrote. He penned a 90-page dissent, the longest of his career, blasting almost every aspect of Kennedy’s decision, starting with Kennedy’s ignoring of precedent and continuing with a refutation of Kennedy’s perception of the Constitutional definitions of “censorship” and “free speech.” Stevens was angered by Kennedy’s equivocation of corporations with people. “The Framers thus took it as a given that corporations could be comprehensively regulated in the service of the public welfare,” he wrote. “Unlike our colleagues, they had little trouble distinguishing corporations from human beings, and when they constitutionalized the right to free speech in the First Amendment, it was the free speech of individual Americans that they had in mind.” Congress has drawn significant distinctions between corporations and people for over a century, he wrote: “at the federal level, the express distinction between corporate and individual political spending on elections stretches back to 1907, when Congress passed the Tillman Act” (see 1907). He even challenged Kennedy’s stated fear that the government might persecute individuals’ speech based on “the speaker’s identity,” sarcastically noting that Kennedy’s opinion “would have accorded the propaganda broadcasts to our troops by ‘Tokyo Rose’ [a famed Japanese propagandist] during World War II the same protection as speech by Allied commanders.” According to Toobin, Stevens’s law clerks disliked the dated reference, but Stevens, a Navy veteran, insisted on keeping it. Toobin writes that “Stevens’s conclusion was despairing.” Stevens concluded: “At bottom, the Court’s opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self-government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt.… It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics.” Toobin notes that as “impressive” as Stevens’s dissent may have been, it was Kennedy’s opinion that “was reshaping American politics.”
Reaction - In his State of the Union address six days after the verdict, President Obama referenced Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s concerns about foreign influence in American politics by saying, “With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests—including foreign corporations—to spend without limit in our elections” (see January 27-29, 2010). Democrats cheered as Obama said, “I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests or, worse, by foreign entities.” Alito’s mouthing of the words “not true” stirred some controversy; Toobin notes that Alito was technically correct, as “Kennedy’s opinion expressly reserved the question of whether the ruling applied to foreign corporations.” However, Toobin notes, “as Olson had argued before the justices, the logic of the Court’s prior decisions suggested that foreign corporations had equal rights to spend in American elections.” With the Citizens United decision and a March 2010 decision that allowed for the formation of “super PACs” (see March 26, 2010), the way was clear for what Toobin calls “presidential campaigns in 2012 that were essentially underwritten by single individuals.” He notes the billionaires that almost single-handedly supported Republican presidential candidates (see February 21, 2012, February 16-17, 2012, February 21, 2012, March 26, 2012, and April 22, 2012), and the efforts of organizations like Crossroads GPS that have to date raised tens of millions of dollars for Republican candidates (see May 2, 2012). Toobin believes that the Court will continue to deregulate campaign finance, noting the 2011 decision that invalidated Arizona’s system of public financing that state enacted after a series of campaign finance scandals (see June 27, 2011). He concludes, “The Roberts Court, it appears, will guarantee moneyed interests the freedom to raise and spend any amount, from any source, at any time, in order to win elections.” [New Yorker, 5/21/2012]
Criticisms of the Article - Toobin’s article will engender significant criticism, from nuanced questioning of particular elements of Toobin’s story (see May 14, 2012) to accusations of outright “fictionalizing” (see May 17, 2012) and “libelous” claims (see May 15-17, 2012).
Entity Tags: Clarence Thomas, US Supreme Court, Citizens United, Barack Obama, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, American Crossroads GPS, Tillman Act, Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, Theodore (“Ted”) Olson, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, John Paul Stevens, John G. Roberts, Jr, Malcolm Stewart, Jeffrey Toobin, Republican Party, Hillary Clinton, Samuel Alito, Federal Election Commission
Timeline Tags: Civil Liberties
US District Court Judge Katherine B. Forrest (Southern Division, New York) finds a controversial section of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) unconstitutional and issues a preliminary injunction barring enforcement. Section 1021(b)(2) of the NDAA authorizes indefinite military detention without trial of any person “who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces” (see December 15, 2011). The law makes no exception for US persons. It has been under review by the court because seven individuals (journalists, activists, and politicians) sued, alleging this section is unconstitutional because it violates their First Amendment right to freedom of speech and association and Fifth Amendment right to due process, and that it imposes military jurisdiction on civilians in violation of Article III and the Fifth Amendment (see January 13, 2012). [OPINION AND ORDER: 12 Civ. 331 (KBF) Hedges et al v. Obama, preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of NDAA Section 1021, 5/16/2012]
Judge Finds NDAA Undermines Protected Speech and Association - The plaintiffs argued that, due to their association with and/or reporting on al-Qaeda and the Taliban in the course of their work as journalists and activists, they might be subject to detention under § 1021, and that, due to the vagueness of the law, there was no way to know if the law could be used against them. In testimony and briefs, the plaintiffs gave examples of how they had altered their speech and behavior out of fear they might be subject to detention. In her Opinion and Order, Forrest notes: “The Government was unable to define precisely what ‘direct’ or ‘substantial’ ‘support’ means.… Thus, an individual could run the risk of substantially supporting or directly supporting an associated force without even being aware that he or she was doing so.” And: “The Government was given a number of opportunities at the hearing and in its briefs to state unambiguously that the type of expressive and associational activities engaged in by plaintiffs—or others—are not within § 1021. It did not. This Court therefore must credit the chilling impact on First Amendment rights as reasonable—and real. Given our society’s strong commitment to protecting First Amendment rights, the equities must tip in favor of protecting those rights.” [OPINION AND ORDER: 12 Civ. 331 (KBF) Hedges et al v. Obama, preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of NDAA Section 1021, 5/16/2012]
Judge Rejects All Three Arguments Made by the Government - Forrest summarizes the government’s position in this way: “[F]irst, that plaintiffs lack standing; second, that even if they have standing, they have failed to demonstrate an imminent threat requiring preliminary relief; and finally, through a series of arguments that counter plaintiffs’ substantive constitutional challenges, that Section 1021 of the NDAA is simply an ‘affirmation’ or ‘reaffirmation’ of the authority conferred by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force.” Rejecting the first and second arguments, Forrest finds the plaintiffs do have standing because their fear of imminent indefinite detention without charge or trial is reasonable, due to the vagueness of § 1021 and the government’s failure to state that the plaintiff’s activities aren’t covered under section 1021, leaving the plaintiffs with no way of knowing if they might be subject to detention. Furthermore, Forrest finds the plaintiffs have suffered actual harm, evidenced by incurring expenses and making changes in speech and association due to fear of potential detention. Regarding the third argument, Forrest rejects the idea that § 1021 could simply be affirming the AUMF, because “[t]o so hold would be contrary to basic principles of legislative interpretation that require Congressional enactments to be given independent meaning”; otherwise § 1021 would be “redundant” and “meaningless.” Furthermore, Forrest finds § 1021 of the NDAA is substantively different than the AUMF; it is not specific in its scope and “lacks the critical component of requiring… that an alleged violator’s conduct must have been, in some fashion, ‘knowing.’” [OPINION AND ORDER: 12 Civ. 331 (KBF) Hedges et al v. Obama, preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of NDAA Section 1021, 5/16/2012]
Judge Finds Lawsuit Will Likely Succeed on Merits, Justifying Injunction - Based on the information put forward by the seven plaintiffs and the government, Forrest concludes the lawsuit will likely succeed on its merits, thus it should be allowed to proceed, stating: “This Court is left then, with the following conundrum: plaintiffs have put forward evidence that § 1021 has in fact chilled their expressive and associational activities; the Government will not represent that such activities are not covered by § 1021; plaintiffs’ activities are constitutionally protected. Given that record and the protections afforded by the First Amendment, this Court finds that plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of succeeding on the merits of a facial challenge to § 1021.” Forrest also notes that issuing a preliminary injunction barring enforcement is unusual, but called for given the evidence and circumstances, stating: “This Court is acutely aware that preliminarily enjoining an act of Congress must be done with great caution. However, it is the responsibility of our judicial system to protect the public from acts of Congress which infringe upon constitutional rights.” [OPINION AND ORDER: 12 Civ. 331 (KBF) Hedges et al v. Obama, preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of NDAA Section 1021, 5/16/2012]
Entity Tags: Chris Hedges, US Department of Defense, Carl Mayer, United States District Court, New York, Southern Division, White House, Birgitta JÃ³nsdÃ³ttir, US Congress, Alexa O’Brien, Barack Obama, Noam Chomsky, US Department of Justice, Mitch McConnell, Harry Reid, Eric Cantor, Daniel Ellsberg, Jennifer Bolen, Nancy Pelosi, Leon Panetta, John Boehner, Katherine B. Forrest, John McCain, Bruce Afran, Kai Wargalla
Timeline Tags: Civil Liberties
Crossroads GPS, a Republican “nonprofit” organization working on behalf of presidential candidate Mitt Romney (R-MA) and other Republicans, plans on spending some $25 million on ads attacking President Obama. The ads will air in 10 states. $8 million of that money is allocated towards ads beginning to run in Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. The ad, according to Associated Press reports, attacks Obama on his economic policies. The Obama campaign, which operates under different campaign finance restrictions than the “independent” Crossroads GPS, has aired anti-Romney ads in recent days. [National Journal, 5/16/2012]
Joaquin Serrapio posing with one of his pellet guns. [Source: NBCMiami (.com)]College student Joaquin Amador Serrapio pleads guilty to threatening to assassinate President Obama. Serrapio, a student at Miami-Dade College in Miami, Florida, was arrested by Secret Service agents in February after posting two threats on Facebook. On February 21, he posted in reference to an Obama appearance at the University of Miami, “Who wants to help me assassinate Obummer while hes at UM this week?” Two days later, the same day Obama was scheduled to appear at the school, Serrapio posted: “If anyones going to UM to see Obama today, get ur phones out and record. Cause at any moment im gonna put a bullet through his head and u don’t wanna miss that! Youtube!” He also characterized the Obama administration as “communist” on his Facebook account. Local police found evidence in his home that he posted the threats (under the pseudonym “Jay Valor”), but no weapons aside from two pellet guns. Police found an iPad with one of the Facebook postings on it and a cell phone with a text message from a friend warning Serrapio, “LOL you can get in trouble for sayin’ that.” Serrapio texted back that he intended to “challeng[e]” the Secret Service, and said that if any Secret Service agents came to arrest him, “I wanna kill at least two of them when they get here.” Prosecutors dropped a charge of threatening Secret Service agents, and have said that Obama was never in any real danger. Serrapio has claimed that he never intended to follow up on his assassination threats, and his intention was merely “to rile up Obama supporters.” Defense lawyer Alan Ross says that Serrapio accepted a plea agreement from prosecutors that required his guilty plea. “He was really stupid, really stupid,” Ross says. Serrapio faces up to 10 months in jail, though Ross notes that US District Judge Marcia Cooke could sentence him to probation. [Associated Press, 2/28/2012; Associated Press, 5/23/2012; Reuters, 5/23/2012; Global Post, 5/23/2012]
President Obama’s Justice Department files a motion urging a federal judge to reconsider a ruling and order that blocked enforcement of a law authorizing indefinite military detention. The case is Hedges v. Obama and the law at issue is section 1021 of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The filing calls Judge Katherine B. Forrest’s preliminary injunction barring enforcement of Section 1021(b)(2) of the NDAA (see May 16, 2012) “extraordinary” as it restricts the president’s authority during wartime. It also questions whether “an order restraining future military operations could ever be appropriate,” and disputes Forrest’s finding that the plaintiffs who had sued to overturn the law (see January 13, 2012) have standing to sue. In footnote 1, the government states that it is construing the order “as applying only as to the named plaintiffs in this suit.” Forrest will clarify in a subsequent Memorandum Opinion and Order that by blocking enforcement of § 1021(b)(2), the only remaining persons covered are those defined in § 1021(b)(1): “A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks” (see June 6, 2012). [Hedges v. Obama: Government's Memorandum of Law in Support of Its Motion for Reconsideration of the May 16, 2012, Opinion and Order, 5/25/2012]
Background - The NDAA was passed by Congress on December 15, 2011 (see December 15, 2011) and signed into law by President Obama on December 31 (see December 31, 2011). The provision for indefinite military detention of any person accused of supporting groups hostile to the United States, without charge or trial, began to generate controversy soon after it was disclosed (see July 6, 2011 and after).
Entity Tags: Noam Chomsky, US Congress, White House, US Department of Justice, United States District Court, New York, Southern Division, US Department of Defense, Mitch McConnell, Nancy Pelosi, Katherine B. Forrest, Carl Mayer, Bruce Afran, Birgitta JÃ³nsdÃ³ttir, Barack Obama, Alexa O’Brien, Chris Hedges, Leon Panetta, Kai Wargalla, Daniel Ellsberg, John McCain, John Boehner, Jennifer Bolen, Eric Cantor, Harry Reid
Timeline Tags: Civil Liberties
John Rocker. [Source: WorldNetDaily]Former major-league baseball pitcher John Rocker, whose career imploded in 2000 after he made a series of racist and homophobic statements during a Sports Illustrated interview, announces that he is endorsing Mitt Romney (R-MA) for president. Rocker makes his endorsement during an interview on the conservative news Web site World Net Daily (WND). In 2000, Rocker told the interviewer: “The biggest thing I don’t like about New York are the foreigners. You can walk an entire block in Times Square and not hear anybody speaking English. Asians and Koreans and Vietnamese and Indians and Russians and Spanish people and everything up there. How the hell did they get in this country?… Imagine having to take the [Number] 7 train to the ballpark, looking like you’re [riding through] Beirut next to some kid with purple hair next to some queer with AIDS right next to some dude who just got out of jail for the fourth time right next to some 20-year-old mom with four kids. It’s depressing.” WND characterizes his comments as “politically incorrect,” says that Sports Illustrated reporter Jeff Pearlman “goaded” Rocker into making those statements, and says that Rocker “was the first victim of many shots in the politically correct war waged against patriotic Americans.” Rocker gives a tepid endorsement to Romney, and spends much of the interview lambasting President Obama. “I won’t necessarily be voting for the Republican candidate as much as I will be voting against Obama,” he says. “America has been the greatest nation this earth has ever known over the last 150 plus years. In my strong opinion Barack Obama does not hold a single core value or belief consistent with the principles that created this amazing country we call the United States of America.… It seems that Governor Romney will be getting my vote, although be it somewhat by default. I would vote for the devil himself over Barack Obama which would actually be tough, though, as he seems to already be a supporter.” Rocker goes on to bash illegal immigrants, and says that “Manuel, Jose, or Prakesh” are certain to launch another 9/11-style attack against the nation in the future: “It’s not a matter of if but when.” Rocker recommends draconian immigration restrictions and “racial profiling” practices by law enforcement officials to “protect” the country from immigrants. ABC’s Amy Bingham later observes: “Some endorsements, candidates would probably rather do without. John Rocker likely makes that list as well.” [WorldNetDaily, 5/26/2012; ABC News, 6/1/2012; Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 6/4/2012]
Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens lambasts the Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision (see January 21, 2010), in which he strongly dissented (see May 14, 2012). Stevens has criticized the decision in earlier statements. He continues that trend in a speech given to the Clinton School of Public Service at the University of Arkansas. He agrees with President Obama’s warning that “foreign entities” could bankroll US elections (see January 27-29, 2010 and October 2010), and challenges the Court to prove that such concerns are “not true,” as Justice Samuel Alito famously mouthed during Obama’s speech at the time by reconciling the Court’s finding that the First Amendment “generally prohibits the suppression of political speech based on the speaker’s identity” with its subsequent decision to uphold a ban on campaign spending by non-citizens in Bluman v. Federal Election Commission (see August 8, 2011). Alito’s reaction to Obama’s warning “persuade[s] me that that in due course it will be necessary for the Court to issue an opinion explicitly crafting an exception that will create a crack in the foundation of the Citizens United majority opinion,” Stevens says. In doing so, “it will be necessary to explain why the First Amendment provides greater protection to the campaign speech of some non-voters than to that of other non-voters.” Stevens is referring to corporations and labor unions as “non-voters,” as is the Canadian citizen who filed the Bluman lawsuit. The Bluman case, Stevens says, “unquestionably provided the Court with an appropriate opportunity to explain why the president had misinterpreted the Court’s opinion in Citizens United. [T]he Court instead took the surprising action of simply affirming the district court without comment and without dissent.” Stevens says the two cases pose a legal conundrum—“notwithstanding the broad language used by the majority in Citizens United, it is now settled, albeit unexplained, that the identity of some speakers may provide a legally acceptable basis for restricting speech.” At some point, Stevens says, the Court will have to grapple with the effects of the decision. “I think it is likely that when the Court begins to spell out which categories of non-voters should receive the same protections as the not-for-profit Citizens United advocacy group, it will not only exclude terrorist organizations and foreign agents, but also all corporations owned or controlled by non-citizens, and possibly even those in which non-citizens have a substantial interest. Where that line will actually be drawn will depend on an exercise of judgment by the majority of members of the Court, rather than on any proposition of law identified in the Citizens United majority opinion.” Stevens does not explicitly reference the upcoming Court case where it will have to rule on Montana’s ban on corporate spending (see December 30, 2011 and After, January 4, 2012, February 10-17, 2012, and April 30, 2012), but he says the Court was wrong to overturn a precedent that allows states to bar corporate spending from outside their borders. For states such as Montana with those laws in effect, “those corporate non-voters were comparable to the non-voting foreign corporations that concerned President Obama when he criticized the Citizens United majority opinion.” He says, “If the First Amendment does not protect the right of a graduate of Harvard Law School to spend his own money to support the candidate of his choice simply because his Canadian citizenship deprives him of the right to participate in our elections, the fact that corporations may be owned or controlled by Canadians—indeed, in my judgment, the fact that corporations have no right to vote—should give Congress the power to exclude them from direct participation in the electoral process.” [Huffington Post, 5/30/2012; University of Arkansas Clinton School of Public Service, 5/30/2012 ]
Without comment, the US Supreme Court refuses to consider an appeal challenging President Obama’s US citizenship and his eligibility to serve as commander in chief. The appeal was filed as part of an ongoing lawsuit by Alan Keyes (see November 12, 2008 and After), Wiley Drake, and Markham Robinson. By refusing to hear the appeal, the Supreme Court affirms a decision by the 9th US Circuit Court that found Keyes, Drake, and Robinson lacked the legal standing to file such a claim. The three allege that Obama was born in Kenya (see October 16, 2008 and After, Around November 26, 2008, Around November 26, 2008, August 1-4, 2009, and August 4, 2009), and therefore is not a natural-born US citizen. They also allege that Obama’s Hawaiian birth certificate (see June 13, 2008 and April 27, 2011) is a forgery (see July 20, 2008, August 15, 2008, August 21, 2008, July 1, 2009, January 18, 2011, April 20, 2011, and April 27, 2011), despite repeated verifications by Hawaiian officials (see October 30, 2008, July 28, 2009, December 24, 2010, and April 11, 2011). Keyes and Drake ran against Obama in 2008 on the far-right American Independent Party ticket. Robinson is the party’s chairman. [Associated Press, 6/11/2012]
Sheldon Adelson and his wife Miriam have given $10 million to the super PAC supporting presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, and a source close to Adelson says the billionaire’s further donations will be “limitless.” Adelson owns a global network of casinos, including the Las Vegas Sands and a consortium of casinos on the Chinese island of Macau. Adelson, one of the world’s 15 richest people, once supported Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich, donating over $21 million to Gingrich’s failed candidacy, and said he was willing to give up to $100 million to keep Gingrich’s candidacy viable. Forbes reporter Steven Bertoni says that Adelson may be willing to give hundreds of millions to the Romney election effort (see March 26, 2012). “[N]o price is too high” to defeat President Obama’s re-election, says the source close to Adelson. Obama is presiding over what Adelson calls the “socialization” of America, and the source says Adelson considers this the most important election of his lifetime. Because of the Citizens United decision (see January 21, 2010), Adelson faces no restrictions whatsoever on the amount of money he can donate to super PACs supporting Romney. The current recipient of Adelson’s largesse is Romney’s campaign super PAC, Restore Our Future. (To give context, Bertoni writes, “The $10 million donation he just made to Romney is equivalent to $40 for an American family with a net worth of $100,000.” He also notes that Adelson has seen his personal and business profits soar during the Obama administration.) Adelson says: “I’m against very wealthy people attempting to or influencing elections. But as long as it’s doable I’m going to do it. Because I know that guys like [billionaire George] Soros have been doing it for years, if not decades. And they stay below the radar by creating a network of corporations to funnel their money (see January - November 2004). I have my own philosophy and I’m not ashamed of it.” Adelson’s primary cause is the security of Israel and its right-wing government. Adelson is also firmly against the Obama administration’s economic policies, telling Bertoni: “What scares me is the continuation of the socialist-style economy we’ve been experiencing for almost four years. That scares me because the redistribution of wealth is the path to more socialism, and to more of the government controlling people’s lives. What scares me is the lack of accountability that people would prefer to experience, just let the government take care of everything and I’ll go fish or I won’t work, etc. US domestic politics is very important to me because I see that the things that made this country great are now being relegated into duplicating that which is making other countries less great.… I’m afraid of the trend where more and more people have the tendency to want to be given instead of wanting to give. People are less willing to share. There are fewer philanthropists being grown and there are greater expectations of the government. I believe that people will come to their senses and not extend the current administration’s quest to socialize this country. It won’t be a socialist democracy because it won’t be a democracy.” [Forbes, 6/13/2012; Huffington Post, 6/16/2012]
Former Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) writes an article for the Stanford Law Review discussing the dominance of “big money” in the nation’s elections in the wake of the 2010 Citizens United decision (see January 21, 2010), documenting his belief that the rise in small-donor contributions that put Democrats in office in 2006 and 2008 led to the Citizens United backlash, and calling for sweeping campaign finance reform. Feingold writes, “Without a significant change in how our campaign finance system regulates the influence of corporations, the American election process, and even the Supreme Court itself, face a more durable, long-term crisis of legitimacy.” Feingold heads Progressives United, an advocacy group that pushes for the overturning of the Citizens United decision and campaign finance legislation.
Background - Feingold gives the background of campaign finance reform in America: the 1907 Tillman Act which banned corporations from spending their money in elections (see 1907), which he says was spurred by the realization that “corporate influence corrupts elections”; the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947, which extended the Tillman ban to labor unions (see June 23, 1947); and more recent legislation, including the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA—see March 27, 2002), which Feingold co-authored with Senator John McCain (R-AZ). “And for several election cycles, between 2004 and 2008, our system seemed headed towards more fair and transparent elections,” he writes. “But Citizens United changed everything.” The “road to corruption” in modern elections, he says, began when Democrats in the early 1990s began exploiting a loophole in finance regulation that allowed the creation of “soft money” groups (see January 8, 1980, November 28, 1984, December 15, 1986, and December 10, 2003) that allowed parties to solicit unlimited amounts of donations from corporations, labor unions, and individuals. “This system was corrupting,” Feingold writes. “Senators would solicit gigantic, unregulated contributions from the same corporations that had legislation pending on the Senate floor. Both parties were guilty.” The BCRA plugged the “soft money” loophole. Even as the BCRA began to reform campaign finance practices, Feingold writes, “the same corporate interests that fought McCain-Feingold set to work to dismantle it. In what was clearly an orchestrated effort by opponents of campaign reform (see January 25, 2010), a group called Citizens United produced a movie savaging the record of then-Senator Clinton (see January 10-16, 2008). Ostensibly intended to educate the public about conservative concerns regarding Clinton’s run for the presidency, the film was little more than a legal vehicle to challenge some of the common-sense restrictions enacted by the BCRA (see January 10-16, 2008, March 24, 2008, March 15, 2009, June 29, 2009, and September 9, 2009). Specifically, the creators of the film sought to challenge the BCRA’s requirement that electioneering communications—commonly known as ‘phony issue ads’ that attack a candidate in the days before the election, but don’t explicitly advocate voting for or against that candidate—be subject to the same disclosure requirements and contribution limits as other campaign ads.” The case was argued on narrow grounds about a specific provision of the BCRA, but the Court’s conservative justices, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, “manipulated the Court’s process to achieve that result” (see May 14, 2012). Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in his dissent to the majority opinion, “[F]ive justices were unhappy with the limited nature of the case before us, so they changed the case to give themselves an opportunity to change the law.” The ruling, Feingold writes, “created a framework for corruption parallel to ‘soft money.’” Instead of “soft money” organizations, Citizens United led to the creation of the “super PAC” (see March 26, 2010, June 23, 2011, November 23, 2011, January 4, 2012, January 4, 2012, January 13, 2012, and February 20, 2012). It has also called into doubt the legitimacy of US elections themselves, due to the “increasing skepticism about the campaign finance system.” Many voters now believe “that the average participant’s small contribution is irrelevant, and that the average person’s vote is grossly outweighed by the gigantic contributions now allowed.”
Internet Politics and Small-Donor Contributions - In part due to the BCRA, Feingold writes, “[f]or three election cycles, in 2004, 2006, and 2008, our system of campaign financing began to take shape in a way that channeled citizen participation and provided incentive for candidates to turn to the democratic support of online activists and small-dollar contributors.” He cites the 2004 presidential campaign of Howard Dean (D-VT), who went on to chair the Democratic National Committee (DNC), as the first powerful instance of “online organizing,” using the Internet to garner millions of dollars in small donations from individual citizens. In 2008, the presidential campaign of Barack Obama (D-IL) pushed the Dean innovation even further. The Obama campaign “raised a historic amount in small-dollar contributions,” Feingold writes, and created an online platform to engage supporters. All told, the Obama campaign raised $500 million online.
An Ineffective FEC - By 2008, he writes, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) was completely impotent. The agency “has been fatally flawed since the time of its creation—any administrative law professor will point out that a law enforcement commission with an even number of commissioners [six] is probably designed specifically not to enforce the law at all,” he writes. By 2008, the FEC only had two seated commissioners, and in effect was not enforcing campaign laws whatsoever. Even after eventually receiving a full complement of commissioners, he writes, the agency “remains ineffective, as even Democratic violators go unpunished as conservative commissioners remain unwilling, philosophically, to enforce any campaign finance law.”
2012: Corporations Trump Citizens - In 2012, corporate contributions far outweigh small-dollar donations by individuals. “[T]he most prominent actors in the 2012 election cycle are unnamed corporations and a small group of influential—primarily conservative—billionaires.” Seventy percent of registered voters think super PACs should be illegal, according to polls, and the favorability rating of the Court has dropped a significant amount. Overall, Feingold writes, the public is firmly against the Citizens United paradigm of campaign finance. He advocates strong legislation from Congress, fixing the “broken system of presidential public financing,” and replacing the “dysfunctional” FEC “with a true enforcement agency.” The ultimate repair of campaign finance lies with the Court, he says, noting that the Court has a chance to do some early repair with the Montana case it is now considering (see June 25, 2012). Regardless of what the Court does or does not do in the Montana case, he concludes, “[t]oday’s framework for corruption cannot stand.” [Stanford Law Review, 6/14/2012]
Entity Tags: Howard Dean, Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, Barack Obama, Citizens United, Hillary Clinton, Russell D. Feingold, Federal Election Commission, John McCain, John G. Roberts, Jr, Stanford Law Review, John Paul Stevens
Timeline Tags: Civil Liberties
Politico reporters Kenneth P. Vogel and Tarini Parti report on the difficulty of getting solid information about the donors being organized by the billionaire Koch brothers. Oil magnates Charles and David Koch (see 1977-Present, 1979-1980, 1981-2010, 1984 and After, Late 2004, May 6, 2006, April 15, 2009, May 29, 2009, December 6, 2009, November 2009, July 3-4, 2010, August 28, 2010, August 30, 2010, September 24, 2010, January 5, 2011, October 4, 2011, and February 14, 2011) intend to raise at least $400 million to defeat President Obama in the 2012 election (see Late May 2012), and to ensure victory for Republicans in state and local races around the nation (see February 21, 2012). Vogel and Parti call the Koch political operation “its own political party,” almost, even going so far as to hold its own semi-annual conventions, including one scheduled for late June in San Diego. That convention will bring together dozens of millionaire and billionaire conservatives, who will write big checks for the Koch efforts. Additionally, the Kochs will unveil their new voter database, Themis (see April 2010 and After), which they expect will help in targeting potential Republican voters around the country. Themis played a big part in a recent successful effort to stop Governor Scott Walker (R-WI) from being recalled, as did huge amounts of Koch-organized donations on behalf of Walker. Three of the prime figures in the Koch efforts are convention “emcee” Kevin Gentry and political operatives Marc Short and Tim Phillips (see May 29, 2009); the operation is orchestrated primarily by Koch advisor and operative Richard Fink. Additionally, the Koch brothers intend to take over the Cato Institute think tank (see February 29, 2012) and make it more politically active. Minnesota television station owner Stanley Hubbard, a longtime Koch supporter, says: “They ask for support—and they get it because we all love our country and we have a different vision than do the liberals. I’ve gotten friends to be involved, and I think others have, too, so I would guess, yes, that’s expanding.” Vogel and Parti expand on how secretive the Koch network (which they call “Koch World”) actually is. They are unable to find out where the San Diego convention is to be held, though they did determine that it is scheduled to take place over the weekend of June 23. A Republican who has worked with Koch-backed groups says: “The Koch groups are very complex in the way they do things. They’re difficult to penetrate from the outside, which is smart. You often need a Sherpa.” The conventions are heavily patrolled by hired security guards, who at one recent convention threw out a Politico reporter under threat of arrest. Participants are required not to discuss the convention with outsiders, including making posts on Facebook or Web blogs. (The winter 2011 convention in Rancho Mirage, California, leaked to the press, sparking what Politico calls “raucous protests” outside the exclusive resort hosting the conference.) According to Vogel and Parti, Phillips runs the lobbying organization Americans for Prosperity (AFP—see Late 2004 and November 2009). Short oversees the spending of Koch network monies by other approved groups, some of which air television ads attacking Democrats. Gentry raises money for the Koch network. Gentry often uses urgent and even apocalyptic rhetoric in his fundraising appeals, warning potential donors of “dangerous and imminent threats” to American society and comparing the Koch conventions to the Continental Congress of 1776. One recent email lauded efforts by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to help the Koch brothers’ fundraising. Gentry also spearheads the fundraising efforts for an informal network of conservative think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation, AFP, and the Texas Public Policy Foundation. Some conservatives are uncomfortable with the Koch brothers’ attempts to gain dominance in conservative party politics. “Koch has been angling for the last three or four years to consolidate more of the conservative movement within their network,” says one conservative operative. “That’s why they do these seminars—to try to consolidate more big donors’ money and direct it into their projects.” The operative admits that the Koch fundraising efforts are very effective, saying, “Some of the donors believe giving to one source makes it easier for them instead of having to give to a dozen different places, and others just want to come out to hang with the billionaire brothers and be part of a very elite universe.” Koch conventions regularly feature prominent conservatives like Thomas and fellow Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, Texas Governor Rick Perry, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, Virginia Governor Bob McConnell, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), and right-wing radio hosts Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. While federal documents track some $120 million in donations from recent Koch summit donors, most of the money raised and spent goes untracked, instead being hidden away by “nonprofit” groups that purport to be non-political social advocacy groups. Gentry has assured donors, “There is anonymity that we can protect.” [Politico, 6/15/2012]
Entity Tags: Cato Institute, Stanley Hubbard, Scott Kevin Walker, Tarini Parti, Texas Public Policy Foundation, Themis, Tim Phillips, Rush Limbaugh, Americans for Prosperity, Antonin Scalia, Bob McConnell, Richard Fink, Marc Short, Clarence Thomas, Christopher J. (“Chris”) Christie, Charles Koch, Politico, Eric Cantor, David Koch, Heritage Foundation, Barack Obama, Kenneth Vogel, James Richard (“Rick”) Perry, Kevin Gentry, Glenn Beck
Timeline Tags: Civil Liberties
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) accuses President Obama and Congressional Democrats of subverting the constitutional guarantees of free speech by trying to restrict political campaign contributions, and says Democrats are using “mob” tactics against their critics. McConnell, speaking at the American Enterprise Institute, says that the White House has shown “an alarming willingness itself to use the powers of government to silence” political speech of groups with which it disagrees. “It is critically important for all conservatives—and indeed all Americans—to stand up and unite in defense of the freedom to organize around the causes we believe in, and against any effort that would constrain our ability to do so,” he says. McConnell is referring to Democrats’ push for the DISCLOSE Act, a campaign finance bill that would force disclosure of the identities of campaign donors that was defeated by a Republican filibuster in 2010 (see July 26-27, 2010) and is being brought up again. The DISCLOSE Act would affect both corporations and unions. Corporate spending in elections tends to favor Republicans, while union spending tends to favor Democrats. McConnell says the act would require “government-compelled disclosure of contributions to all grass-roots groups, which is far more dangerous than its proponents are willing to admit. This is nothing less than an effort by the government itself to expose its critics to harassment and intimidation, either by government authorities or through third-party allies.… The courts have said that Congress doesn’t have the authority to muzzle political speech. So the president himself will seek to go around it by attempting to change the First Amendment.” McConnell cites the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) as one government agency “persecuting” Republican-allied groups, saying, “Earlier this year, dozens of tea party-affiliated groups across the country learned what it was like to draw the attention of the speech police when they received a lengthy questionnaire from the IRS demanding attendance lists, meeting transcripts, and donor information.” The IRS has denied targeting groups based on their political views. IRS Commissioner Douglas H. Shulman says the information requirements stemmed from the tea party groups’ applications for nonprofit status, which triggered automatic IRS review procedures. “There’s many safeguards built in so this has nothing to do with election cycles and politics,” Shulman said before a House Appropriations subcommittee. “This notion that we’re targeting anyone is off.” McConnell says of Obama, “Not only did his campaign publish a list of eight private citizens it regards as enemies—an actual old-school enemies list—it recently doubled down on the effort when some began to call these thuggish tactics into question.” McConnell is referring to an Obama campaign “truth team” document that publicized information about eight wealthy Republican donors. “The tactics I’m describing extend well beyond the campaign headquarters in Chicago. To an extent not seen since the Nixon administration, they extend deep into the administration itself.” McConnell cites the example of Idaho businessman Frank VanderSloot, the national finance co-chair of the Mitt Romney presidential campaign, who was “smeared” as being “a bitter opponent” of gay rights by the Obama campaign. [Bloomberg, 6/15/2012; New York Times, 6/15/2012] VanderSloot is an outspoken opponent of gay rights, though he has hotly denied advocating such positions and often threatens lawsuits against those reporting his positions (see February 17-21, 2012). [Salon, 2/17/2012; KIFI Local News 8, 3/1/2012] The New York Times calls McConnell’s remarks “incendiary.” Fred Wertheimer of Democracy 21, a campaign-finance reform advocacy group, says McConnell “doesn’t have a constitutional or policy leg to stand on.” Democrats note that McConnell has failed to criticize organized efforts by the Romney campaign to heckle and disrupt campaign press conferences, nor has he criticized tea party efforts to disrupt and shout down Democrats during town hall meetings around the country. Wertheimer says McConnell is using his fiery rhetoric to, in the Times’s phrasing, “run interference for the secret donors pumping hundreds of millions of dollars into the US Chamber of Commerce and American Crossroads.” Obama campaign spokesperson Ben LaBolt says, “Senator McConnell has been running a cover-up operation for the special interest donors attempting to buy the election for the GOP in order to promote their agendas over the national interest.” [Bloomberg, 6/15/2012; New York Times, 6/15/2012]
Casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson, one of the world’s 15 richest people, is on course to contribute at least $71 million to efforts to unseat President Obama in the November presidential elections and elect Republicans to national and state office (see February 21, 2012). Adelson’s contributions are cloaked in secrecy, as much of his contributions go to “nonprofit” political organizations that under the law do not have to disclose their donors. Adelson and his wife Miriam have already contributed $10 million to a “super PAC” backing Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney (see June 13, 2012), and have either given or pledged to give up to $35 million to other organizations, including Crossroads GPS, a “nonprofit” organization led by former George W. Bush advisor and longtime Adelson friend Karl Rove, the Koch-financed Americans for Prosperity (AFP—see Late 2004, May 29, 2009, and November 2009), and another organization linked to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA). Adelson is a strong supporter of Israel’s far-right government and a staunch opponent of US labor unions. Adelson has told friends that he may give up to $100 million in efforts to unseat Obama and elect Republicans in state races; indications are that he may give much, much more. Some of Adelson’s donations may go to another Koch-funded organization, the Center to Protect Patients’ Rights, which in 2010 was used to funnel tens of millions of dollars to other conservative organizations (see October 12, 2010). The Young Guns Network is a nonprofit group set up by Cantor, and has received $5 million from Adelson (see June 10, 2012). So has the “super PAC” the Congressional Leadership Fund, a group linked to House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH). Adelson’s Las Vegas casino The Sands is under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Justice Department for possible violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which exists to prevent bribery of foreign business officials. The Sands denies any wrongdoing. Adelson previously backed Romney’s opponent Newt Gingrich (R-GA), but as Gingrich’s hopes for the presidential nomination faded, Adelson indicated that he would shift his support to Romney. Adelson has told GOP colleagues he intends to make most of his contributions to nonprofits like Crossroads GPS, which are not required to make the names of their donors, or the amounts of their donations, public. Although the law bars candidates like Romney from soliciting donations exceeding $5,000, Republican fundraisers say that candidates and their representatives have flocked to Adelson in recent months, as have representatives from organizations such as the US Chamber of Commerce, which intends to spend $50 million in efforts to elect Republicans to Congress. The nonprofit Republican Jewish Coalition has received millions from Adelson in the past, and says it intends to spend some $5 million this year on behalf of candidates such as Josh Mandel (R-OH), running to unseat Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH). Adelson also donated $250,000 to help turn back efforts to recall Governor Scott Walker (R-WI) and $250,000 to a political committee backing Governor Rick Scott (R-FL), who is battling the Justice Department to be allowed to purge hundreds of thousands of minority voters from the voting rolls. [Huffington Post, 6/16/2012] In March 2012, 80 billionaires such as Adelson gave two-thirds of the monies raised by super PACs, creating an outsized influence on the presidential and “downticket” election campaigns (see March 26, 2012).
Entity Tags: Congressional Leadership Fund, US Chamber of Commerce, US Department of Justice, US Securities and Exchange Commission, Willard Mitt Romney, Young Guns Network, Center to Protect Patients’ Rights, American Crossroads GPS, Americans for Prosperity, Sherrod Brown, The Sands, Barack Obama, Josh Mandel, John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Sheldon Adelson, Scott Kevin Walker, Miriam Adelson, Rick Scott, Republican Jewish Coalition, Newt Gingrich, Karl C. Rove
Timeline Tags: Civil Liberties
According to a wide-ranging poll conducted by Dartmouth professor Benjamin Valentino, over 63 percent of self-identified Republicans believe that President Obama was born in another country and, by extension, is not a natural-born American citizen and thusly is in office illegally. Less than 10 percent of self-identified Democrats and just over 30 percent of self-identified independents hold similar views. The question was, “Which of the following statements best describes your views on whether Barack Obama was born in the United States or another country?” The available answers were:
“I used to think President Obama was born in another country, but now I think he was born in the United States.”
“I used to think President Obama was born in the United States, but now I think he was born in another country.”
“I have always believed President Obama was born in the United States.”
“I have always believed President Obama was born in another country.”
The 65-question poll was conducted by YouGov from April 26 through May 2, 2012, and surveyed 1056 respondents. It has a margin of error of plus/minus 3.18 percent. [Valentino, 6/20/2012 ; Huffington Post, 6/21/2012]
Analysis from the Annenberg Public Policy Center shows that 85 percent of the spending by the top 501(c)4 groups involved in the 2012 presidential campaign has been on ads found to be “deceptive” by fact-checking organizations. Spending from third-party groups, including “nonprofit” 501(c)4 groups, is up by 1,100 percent since the 2008 presidential campaign (see May 2, 2012). All of the ads are by Republican or conservative groups; Democratic 501(c)4 groups have not yet spent any money on the race. The ads, which aired between December 1, 2011 and June 1, 2012, have either targeted Republican presidential primary candidates or President Obama. The Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler, part of the Post’s “Fact Checker” team, recently criticized the wave of untruthful advertising, writing that “watching these ads is a depressing duty for The Fact Checker.… The erroneous assertions emerge… without any shame, labeled as ‘the truth’ or ‘fact.’” Kessler was criticizing ad campaigns by Americans for Prosperity (AFP—see Late 2004, May 29, 2009, and November 2009) and the American Future Fund (see October 12, 2010), which spent $8 million to attack Obama’s approval of the expense of “stimulus” money for “wasteful” programs that the ads falsely claimed sent American jobs to foreign countries. According to the Annenberg analysis, the four top groups spending money on deceptive ads are:
The American Energy Alliance, a trade organization that advocates “free market energy policies,” with expenditures of $3,269,000;
Americans for Prosperity, advocating lower taxes and less government spending, with expenditures of $5,018,000;
The American Future Fund, with expenditures of $6,365,930; and
Crossroads GPS, a conservative public policy advocacy group founded by former Bush administration political chief Karl Rove and former Republican National Committee director Ed Gillespie, with expenditures of $10,263,760.
Like the ads Kessler cited, many of the ads bought by the above-listed expenditures went to attack Obama over government financing of green energy companies such as the bankrupt solar company Solyndra. According to Bloomberg News, 81 percent of the attack ads against Obama in the first quarter of 2012 were about energy. [Washington Post, 4/30/2012; Annenberg Public Policy Center, 6/20/2012; Think Progress, 6/27/2012]
Entity Tags: American Crossroads GPS, Barack Obama, American Energy Alliance, Annenberg Public Policy Center, American Future Fund, Americans for Prosperity, Karl C. Rove, Bloomberg News, Ed Gillespie, Glenn Kessler, Solyndra Corporation
Timeline Tags: Civil Liberties, 2012 Elections
Casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson gives $10 million to the billionaire Koch brothers, joining them in their efforts to defeat President Obama in the November presidential elections. Charles and David Koch (see 1977-Present, 1979-1980, 1997, 1981-2010, 1984 and After, Late 2004, May 6, 2006, April 15, 2009, May 29, 2009, November 2009, December 6, 2009, April 2010 and After, July 3-4, 2010, June 26-28, 2010, August 28, 2010, August 30, 2010, September 24, 2010, January 5, 2011, October 4, 2011, February 14, 2011, February 29, 2012, Late March 2012, and June 15, 2012) are planning to spend some $400 million to elect Republican candidate Mitt Romney (R-MA) and defeat Obama. The information about Adelson’s donation comes from a Republican Party source in Nevada. Adelson makes his pledge at a Koch donor convention in San Diego, the first time he has attended a Koch-sponsored political event. He has already given $10 million to a Romney “super PAC” (see June 13, 2012), $10 million to a “super PAC” operated by former Bush White House advisor Karl Rove, and $10 million to two groups backing Republican House candidates (see Mid-June, 2012). The Kochs are the driving force behind the “astroturf” organization Americans for Prosperity (AFP—see Late 2004, May 29, 2009, and November 2009), which has spent millions of dollars on advertisements attacking Obama and other Democrats. The Kochs are also funding Themis, a voter information database (see April 2010 and After). Koch funding extends well into state and even local elections. [Huffington Post, 6/16/2012; Washington Post, 6/29/2012]
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney (R-MA) criticizes President Obama’s foreign-policy stance while preparing for a trip to Great Britain, and an unnamed Romney advisor tells a British reporter that Obama does not understand the US’s and the United Kingdom’s shared “Anglo-Saxon heritage.” Critics accuse the advisor of making a racially insensitive remark. Romney accuses Obama of “appeasing” the enemies of the US, and his advisors tell reporters that if elected, Romney will abandon what they call Obama’s “left-wing” coolness towards the UK. One advisor says: “We are part of an Anglo-Saxon heritage, and [Romney] feels that the special relationship is special.… The White House didn’t fully appreciate the shared history we have.” In a speech to a Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) assemblage in Nevada, Romney says: “If you do not want America to be the strongest nation on earth, I am not your president. You have that president today.” Romney says he will preside over a new “American century” in which the US acts as the world’s policeman and will not hesitate to “wield our strength.” He adds, “I will not surrender America’s leadership in the world.” Two Romney advisors augment his remarks to a collection of British reporters. “In contrast to President Obama, whose first instinct is to reach out to America’s adversaries, the governor’s first impulse is to consult and co-ordinate and to move closer to our friends and allies overseas so they can rely on American constancy and strength,” one says. The other says: “Obama is a left-winger. He doesn’t value the NATO alliance as much, he’s very comfortable with American decline and the traditional alliances don’t mean as much to him. He wouldn’t like singing ‘Land of Hope and Glory.’” The two advisors reference the criticism from some on the right about Obama’s removal of the bust of Winston Churchill from the Oval Office (see June 29, 2009), saying Romney would seek to restore the bust. One says Romney sees the replacement of the bust as “symbolically important,” and the other adds that the restoration would be “just for starters.… He is naturally more Atlanticist.” Some in Great Britain’s government view the Obama administration as less receptive to British concerns than the previous Bush administration. However, when reporters press Romney’s advisors as to what specific changes to US policy Romney would make as president, they are unable to respond. One says, “I’m not sure what our policy response is.” They cite Romney’s opposition to Islamist terrorism and Iran’s supposed intention to build nuclear weapons as examples of Romney’s focus as president. Romney’s advisors speak on the condition of anonymity because Romney campaign officials have asked that they not criticize Obama to representatives of the foreign media. When a Romney advisor attacked Obama in an interview by the German press last month, Obama reminded the Romney campaign that “America’s political differences end at the water’s edge.” [Daily Telegraph, 7/24/2012]
Romney Campaign Denies Making Remarks - The day after the remarks are made public, the Romney campaign attempts to distance the candidate from the remarks, including issuing denials that the remarks were not actually made. Romney’s press secretary Andrea Paul disputes that the comments were made as reported, and says such remarks do not reflect Romney’s beliefs: “It’s not true. If anyone said that, they weren’t reflecting the views of Governor Romney or anyone inside the campaign.” CBS News reports, “Saul did not comment on what specifically was not true.” (The Washington Post and the National Journal cite Romney spokesperson Amanda Hennenberg, and not Saul, as issuing the denial. CBS and The Guardian report that it is Saul who issues the denial.) Romney attacks Vice President Joseph Biden for being critical of the remarks (see July 25, 2012), saying that Biden should not have given credence to the remarks and accusing him of trying to “divert voters’ attention with specious shiny objects.” Romney spokesperson Ryan Williams says in a statement: “Today, the race for the highest office in our land was diminished to a sad level when the vice president of the United States used an anonymous and false quote from a foreign newspaper to prop up their flailing campaign. The president’s own press secretary has repeatedly discredited anonymous sources, yet his political advisors saw fit to advance a falsehood. We have more faith in American voters, and know they will see this latest desperate ploy for what it is.” After the remarks were reported, Daily Telegraph reporter Jon Swaine posted on Twitter identifying the comments as coming from a “member of [Romney’s] foreign policy advisory team.” The Washington Post’s Rachel Weiner says the Telegraph has a “looser” policy on anonymous quotes than most American press outlets, and often prints “rumors and blind quotes.” However, the Telegraph stands by its reporting. Al-Monitor reporter Laura Rozen notes that conservative British commentator Nile Gardiner is the co-chair of Romney’s Europe Working Group, has close connections to the Telegraph, and frequently uses the term “Anglo-Saxon.” Gardiner denies being the source of the comment, and says when Telegraph reporters contacted him for an interview, he referred them to Romney’s communications team. [CBS News, 7/25/2012; Washington Post, 7/25/2012; Guardian, 7/25/2012; National Journal, 7/25/2012] The liberal news Web site Talking Points Memo reports that according to the Telegraph, no one from the Romney campaign has asked the newspaper to retract its reporting. And the Romney campaign refuses to answer questions about what specifically it believes to be false, i.e. whether the quote itself was fabricated or the sentiment expressed by the advisor was inaccurate. [Talking Points Memo, 7/25/2012; National Journal, 7/25/2012] The Atlantic Wire’s Connor Simpson writes that he believes the Romney campaign will soon fire the advisor who made the remark. [Atlantic Wire, 7/25/2012]
Entity Tags: Mitt Romney presidential campaign (2012), Amanda Hennenberg, Andrea Paul, Laura Rozen, Barack Obama, Jon Swaine, Connor Simpson, CBS News, Joseph Biden, Daily Telegraph, Washington Post, National Journal, Nile Gardiner, Willard Mitt Romney, Obama administration, Talking Points Memo, Rachel Weiner, The Guardian, Ryan Williams
Timeline Tags: 2012 Elections
Critics accuse an unnamed advisor to the Romney campaign of making a racially insensitive remark to British reporters when the advisor accused President Obama of not understanding the shared “Anglo-Saxon” heritage of the US and the United Kingdom (see July 24-25, 2012). Obama’s father was Kenyan, and many of Obama’s critics have accused Obama of not being sufficiently American (see October 1, 2007, January 16, 2008, October 16, 2008 and After, Around November 26, 2008, February 10, 2009, March 9, 2009, March 18, 2009, March 25, 2009, March 27, 2009, March 30-31, 2009, March 31, 2009, April 1, 2009, April 1-2, 2009, April 3-7, 2009, April 6, 2009, April 6-7, 2009, April 9, 2009, June 2, 2009, June 5, 2009, June 25, 2009, June 29, 2009, July 23, 2009, August 1-4, 2009, August 6, 2009, September 17, 2009, October 2, 2009, October 13, 2009, November 17, 2009, December 3, 2009, December 17, 2009, May 7, 2010, June 11, 2010, Shortly Before June 28, 2010, August 4, 2010, August 19, 2010, September 12, 2010, September 12, 2010 and After, September 16, 2010, September 18, 2010, September 23, 2010, October 22-23, 2010, March 28, 2011, April 7, 2011, April 27, 2011, April 27, 2011, May 23-24, 2011, June 10, 2011, January 13-20, 2012, and June 20, 2012) and of not working hard enough to bolster relations between the US and the United Kingdom. Critics also accuse Mitt Romney of trying to create a division between the US and the United Kingdom where none exists. Romney’s campaign is denying the remarks were ever made. [Daily Telegraph, 7/25/2012]
Vice President, Obama Campaign Advisor Respond - Vice President Joseph Biden is quick to lambast the Romney campaign for the comment. “Despite his promises that politics stops at the water’s edge, Governor Romney’s wheels hadn’t even touched down in London before his advisors were reportedly playing politics with international diplomacy,” he says in a statement, “attempting to create daylight between the United States and the United Kingdom where none exists. Our special relationship with the British is stronger than ever and we are proud to work hand-in-hand with Prime Minister Cameron to confront every major national security challenge we face today. On every major issue—from Afghanistan to missile defense, from the fight against international terrorism to our success in isolating countries like Iran whose nuclear programs threaten peace and stability—we’ve never been more in sync. The comments reported this morning are a disturbing start to a trip designed to demonstrate Governor Romney’s readiness to represent the United States on the world’s stage. Not surprisingly, this is just another feeble attempt by the Romney campaign to score political points at the expense of this critical partnership. This assertion is beneath a presidential campaign.” Obama campaign advisor David Axelrod calls the comments “stunningly offensive” in a Twitter post, which states, “Mitt’s trip off to flying start, even before he lands, with stunningly offensive quotes from his team in British press.” [CBS News, 7/25/2012; Business Insider, 7/25/2012; Guardian, 7/25/2012]
British Historian Questions Perception of 'Divisions' between Two Nations - British historian Tim Stanley says the perception of “divisions” between the US and the UK is overblown, and that many British citizens “love [Obama] because they see him as an antidote to the misdirected machismo of the Bush years. Few of us are keen to revive an alliance that led to the bloody mess of Iraq and Afghanistan.” More directly, the advisor’s “Anglo-Saxon” reference is obsolete and easily interpreted as racist. “Both countries are more multicultural than ever before, and both have forged alliances with countries that are decidedly un-Anglo-Saxon: the US is part of a trading bloc with Mexico and the UK is trapped in the engine room of the [European Union] Titanic,” Stanley writes. “Many will therefore interpret the choice of words as a clumsy attempt to play the race card, exploiting the impression that Obama is anti-British because he is of African descent.” Stanley writes that the advisors seemed more interested in painting Obama as a “left-winger” who lacks an understanding of the relations between the two nations than trying to make a racially insensitive remark, but he predicts the media will fasten onto the remark and label the Romney campaign, and perhaps Romney himself, as being racist to some degree. [Daily Telegraph, 7/25/2012]
British Columnist: Romney Should Not 'Cast Us All Back into the Dark Ages' - Ian Vince, a columnist with The Guardian, asks what exactly the Romney campaign might mean by stating a desire to restore “Anglo-Saxon” relations between the two nations. Vince notes the thousand years of culture and heritage contributed by the Normans, the Romans, the Danish Jutes, and the Vikings, among others, and the huge number of non-“Anglo-Saxons” who consider themselves proud British citizens. He concludes by observing, “Mitt Romney would be wise not to cast us all back into the Dark Ages.” [Guardian, 7/25/2012]
Liberal News Site: Comments Part of Larger Attack on Obama's Heritage, Patriotism - Judd Legum of the liberal news Web site Think Progress says the comments are part of a much broader series of attacks on Obama’s heritage and patriotism by the Romney campaign. Legum calls the comments “the latest attack by the Romney campaign on Obama’s multi-cultural heritage.” Last week, Legum reminds readers, Romney campaign co-chair John Sununu told reporters Obama has no understanding of the “American system” because he “spent his early years in Hawaii smoking something, spent the next set of years in Indonesia,” and said Obama needs to “learn how to be an American.” Later that day, Romney himself called Obama’s policies “extraordinarily foreign.” [Think Progress, 7/25/2012]
Neoconservative Magazine: Story Not Believable, Romney's Denial Should Settle Question - However, Alana Goodman of the neoconservative Commentary magazine says she did not believe the story from the moment it was reported. She says the story hinges entirely on a single unnamed source (the Romney advisor, who spoke on condition of anonymity), and accuses the Obama campaign of “scrambling to pump air into” the controversy surrounding the comments. She concludes, “Unless a reporter is able to verify who said this and what his role is in the campaign, Romney’s denial should put this story to rest.” [Commentary, 7/25/2012]
A portion of the cover of the DVD ‘Dreams From My Real Father.’ The subtitle is ‘A Story of Reds and Deception.’ [Source: Opposing Views (.com)]Bill Armistead, the chairman of the Alabama Republican Party, publicly claims President Obama is the illegitimate son of Frank Marshall Davis, an American labor activist and organizer for the Communist Party USA. Armistead makes his claim to a meeting of the Eastern Shore Republican Women in Fairhope, Alabama, where he recommends a movie entitled Dreams From My Real Father, a play on Obama’s 1995 memoir, Dreams From My Father. The film was directed by Joel Gilbert, who has described it thusly: “Admittedly, at age 18, Obama arrived at Occidental College a committed revolutionary Marxist. Dreams from My Real Father presents the case that Frank Marshall Davis, a Communist Party USA organizer and propagandist, was Obama’s real father, both biological and ideological, and indoctrinated Obama with a political foundation in Marxism and an anti-white world view.” Armistead tells the audience: “We have to win this election. This is about our country. Our country will not be the same. I’m convinced, if Obama wins, our children and grandchildren will not live under the same conditions that we’ve lived in these wonderful years. Obama has a different ideology than we do.” He then answers a question from the audience about another movie critical of Obama, 2016: Obama’s America, by conservative pundit and author Dinesh D’Souza (see September 12, 2010 and September 16, 2010). Armistead replies: “If you haven’t seen it, you should. But I’m going to tell you about another movie. The name of it is Dreams From My Real Father. That is absolutely frightening. I’ve seen it. I verified that it is factual, all of it. People can determine.” Armistead does not explain how he has “verified” the accuracy of the movie’s claims. The story of Armistead’s comments is quickly picked up by local and national press outlets, including Salon and TPM Muckraker, which say that Armistead has gone “birther.” The reference is to discredited conspiracy theories claiming that Obama is not a naturally-born American citizen. Miranda Blue, a spokesperson for the liberal People for the American Way (PFAW), says the film is a “fringe birther movie” and adds, “This is the first we’ve heard of a political leader embracing… Gilbert’s conspiracy theory.” [Mobile Press-Register, 9/20/2012] According to Blue, “A trailer for the film cuts to various right-wing bogeymen including Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, and ACORN in between misleadingly edited snippets of speeches by the president and Michelle Obama.” She writes, “Gilbert’s film has divided the birther movement, since its assertion that Davis is Obama’s real father would seem to be incompatible with the theory that the president was born in Kenya.” Jerome Corsi, a writer for the conservative WorldNetDaily and a veteran “birther” (see August 1, 2008 and After, July 21, 2009, and September 21, 2010), supports the film, but California lawyer and “birther” Orly Taitz (see August 1-4, 2009, October 29, 2009, and April 27, 2011) says Corsi is “trying to kill the case by making up an American citizen father for Obama.” The film has reached a wide audience, with conservative media outlets such as the New York Post promoting it and Gilbert sending a million copies of the film on DVD to voters in Ohio. Gilbert plans to send another million copies to voters in other swing states. Gilbert says the mainstream media is ignoring the film “because they support national health care.” Gilbert told a recent National Press Club audience that Obama and his political advisor David Axelrod are both “red diaper babies,” children born of Communist parents and brought up to advance the cause. Obama, he said, is pursuing what he says was Davis’s dream of imposing a Stalinist-Marxist dictatorship on America, and that Obama worked with the now-defunct Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) to cause the housing crisis as part of a plan to, he said, “use minorities and the poor to collapse capitalism.” [Right Wing Watch, 9/20/2012; Salon, 9/20/2012] The film is narrated by an Obama impersonator. It contains a disclaimer noting that many of the scenes are “re-creations of probable events, using reasoned logic, speculation, and approximated conversations.” [TPM Muckraker, 9/21/2012] The tale of Obama being fathered by Davis was promulgated most recently by conservative agitator Andy Martin (see Before October 27, 2008) and other far-right sources.
Entity Tags: Jerome Corsi, Barack Obama, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Anthony Robert Martin-Trigona, Alabama Republican Party, Bill Armistead, Frank Marshall Davis, Orly Taitz, Joel Gilbert, David Axelrod, Miranda Blue
Timeline Tags: Domestic Propaganda
A campaign button for Gary Johnson, who bills himself as ‘The People’s President.’ [Source: Marsh Enterprises / CafePress (.com)]The third-party presidential campaign of former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson (L-NM) accuses the Pennsylvania Republican Party of breaking the law in trying to keep Johnson off the ballot in that state. Johnson is running on the Libertarian ticket after failing to secure the Republican presidential nomination. Attorney Alicia Dearn writes a letter to the Philadelphia District Attorney’s office asking it to investigate allegations of attempted bribery and false impersonation of an FBI agent by Pennsylvania Republican Party operatives. Dearn writes in part, “Based on what I have been told by witnesses, it is my opinion that the Pennsylvania Republican State Committee has engaged in Watergate-style dirty tricks, in an attempt to keep Gov. Johnson off the ballot.” The allegations center around a private investigator, Reynold Selvaggio, allegedly hired by the Pennsylvania GOP to try to invalidate signatures submitted by the Johnson campaign. The Johnson campaign says that it submitted enough citizen signatures to obtain a place on the state ballot, a claim the Pennsylvania GOP is disputing. Dearn writes that Selvaggio either passed himself off as an FBI agent or implied that he was one (he is a retired FBI agent), and offered $2,000 to Johnson campaign volunteers in return for their testimony that they falsified signatures. Dearn also claims that Selvaggio threatened the volunteers with prosecution when they declined to cooperate. The state Republican Party calls Dearn’s allegations “baseless,” and, according to party spokesperson Valerie Caras, “This is simply a distraction from their own questionable activities.” They allege that Johnson has been working with Pennsylvania Democrats to gain signatures. Selvaggio tells a reporter: “That’s a lie. That’s completely a lie.” Dearn says she has heard similar stories from six different campaign volunteers, and writes, “Should these witness accounts indeed be true, it appears that, in order to bolster their challenge to the Johnson campaign’s candidacy, the Pennsylvania Republican State Committee or its agents sought to obtain witness testimony by unlawful means.” Johnson is on the ballot in 47 states plus the District of Columbia. Republicans in Pennsylvania have succeeded in getting tens of thousands of Johnson signatures invalidated. [Daily Caller, 10/5/2012; New York Times, 10/14/2012] Johnson will succeed in remaining on the Pennsylvania ballot, where state Republicans fear he will drain much-needed votes from the Republican candidate, Mitt Romney (R-MA), even though Republican National Committee (RNC) chairman Reince Priebus calls Johnson a “non-factor” in the election. The chairman of the Pennsylvania GOP, Robert Gleason, is more worried, comparing Johnson’s impact on the race to Green Party candidate Ralph Nader in 2000, when Nader drew just enough votes in Florida to mar Democrat Al Gore’s chance for victory. “This election will be close—if you remember, [former President George W.] Bush lost by only something like 143,000 votes in 2004,” he says. “So we play the game hard here.” Some pundits believe Johnson will hurt President Obama’s chances in Colorado. Republicans say that Conservative Party candidate Virgil Goode, on the ballot in Virginia and 28 other states, may also draw key votes from Romney in several states. Democrats say Johnson may draw key votes from Romney in Nevada, where polls show Romney and Obama essentially tied. [New York Times, 10/14/2012]
Analyses by the New York Times and FactCheck.org show that presidential candidate Mitt Romney made some fundamental misstatements when he criticized the Obama administration’s green energy program (see February 2009). During the October 3 presidential debate, Romney claimed Obama had given $90 billion of federal money to clean energy programs, saying at one point: “Now, I like green energy as well, but that’s about 50 years’ worth of what oil and gas receives. Ninety billion—that—that would have—that would have hired two million teachers.” The Times reports that while the $90 billion is an accurate number drawn from the 2009 economic stimulus package, not all of it was spent on green energy, and much of the money that was spent on green energy programs was authorized during the Bush administration. Of the $90 billion authorized by the Obama administration, $29 billion went to energy efficiency programs; much of that was spent on retrofitting homes and apartments of low-income households to be more energy efficient and lower their energy costs. $18 billion was spent on fast, energy-efficient trains and $21 billion was spent on wind farms, solar panels, and other renewable energy. Much of these expenditures was matched by private investments. Romney claimed, “I think about half of them, of the ones have been invested in, they’ve gone out of business,” and cited the example of Solyndra, a maker of solar equipment that went bankrupt, costing the government some $528 million. The Times notes that Solyndra began receiving money during the Bush administration, and that the government has been able to recover some of its funds from other firms that went bankrupt. The Times writes, “The defaults were far less than Congress had allocated to cover losses, and far, far less than half of the ventures, although some others may yet fail.” FactCheck, a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center, goes further, noting, “In summary, Romney said a lot about the $90 billion in stimulus spending on clean energy—and very little of it was accurate.” FactCheck accuses Romney of making “numerous bogus claims” about the $90 billion energy funding. Only six percent of the firms loaned money by the government for clean energy technology have gone bankrupt, it notes, not “about half,” as Romney claimed. Romney also wrongly stated that the entire $90 billion was spent on “solar and wind” projects; in reality, less than a third was spent on those programs. His claim that the $90 billion was equivalent to “about 50 years’ worth of what oil and gas receives” in tax breaks was doubly wrong; by his own figures, it would have been 32 years’ worth, but real data shows it is closer to about 10 years’ worth of oil and gas subsidies. The claim that Obama could “have hired two million teachers” was wrong, since much of that $90 billion was in the form of loans, and, FactCheck notes, “the government can’t hire teachers with loans.” Even data provided by the Romney campaign to back up its claims disproves Romney’s assertions. [New York Times, 10/4/2012; FactCheck (.org), 10/4/2012]
Receive weekly email updates summarizing what contributors have added to the History Commons database
Developing and maintaining this site is very labor intensive. If you find it useful, please give us a hand and donate what you can.
If you would like to help us with this effort, please contact us. We need help with programming (Java, JDO, mysql, and xml), design, networking, and publicity. If you want to contribute information to this site, click the register link at the top of the page, and start contributing.