GOP U.S. Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell sparked a media firestorm after her victory in the Delaware primary last month. After establishment Republicans attacked her and comedian Bill Maher released a video clip of her saying she had once dabbled in witchcraft, O’Donnell went into damage control mode. First she canceled Sunday show interviews and then told Fox News’ Sean Hannity that she would no longer appear on national news media.

But, O’Donnell has broken her pledge. Yesterday, she promised CNN’s Jim Acosta that she would talk to him, and today, she granted him an interview, part of which has already aired on CNN’s The Situation Room.

But now that O’Donnell has given CNN an interview, thus breaking her “no national media” pledge, perhaps she can also do an interview with MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow. After all, O’Donnell used Maddow-as-villain in a recent fundraising campaign. Maddow, along with some of her staff, was kicked out of O’Donnell’s campaign office this week after making an attempt to interview her. And the MSNBC host responded last night that she’d be happy to have O’Donnell on her show so she can provide her point of view:

MADDOW: If you are unhappy with our coverage of you, Ms. O’Donnell, if you think that we intentionally “cover up the truth”… as you said in your fundraising letter, I can assure you that our reporting on you would be so much better-informed if you were actually in it, if you would actually talk to us, instead of having your staffers call us names and getting some angry man to yell “Get off my lawn” at us, just because we asked for an interview.

Watch it:

At the end of the segment, Maddow made a pledge of her own. “So say, ‘Yes,’ Christine O’Donnell!” Maddow said. “It will be fun, I promise!”

Today was a victory for the Affordable Care Act. The first court decision to render a verdict on the constitutionality of the landmark health reform package upheld a key portion of law. Earlier today, Judge George Caram Steeh of the Eastern District of Michigan handed down a twenty page order dismissing a challenge to the Act’s minimum coverage provision on the merits:

“In assessing the scope of Congress’ authority under the Commerce Clause,” the court’s task “is a modest one.” The court need not itself determine whether the regulated activities, “taken in the aggregate, substantially affect interstate commerce in fact, but only whether a ‘rational basis’ exists for so concluding.”

There is a rational basis to conclude that, in the aggregate, decisions to forego insurance coverage in preference to attempting to pay for health care out of pocket drive up the cost of insurance. The costs of caring for the  uninsured who prove unable to pay are shifted to health care providers, to the insured population in the form of higher premiums, to governments, and to taxpayers. The decision whether to purchase insurance or to attempt to pay for health care out of pocket, is plainly economic. These decisions, viewed in the aggregate, have clear and direct impacts on health care providers, taxpayers, and the insured population who ultimately pay for the care provided to those who go without insurance. These are the economic effects addressed by Congress in enacting the Act and the minimum coverage provision.

Although Judge Steeh is the second judge to dismiss a challenge to health reform — last August, a George W. Bush appointee dismissed a health care case on procedural grounds — he is the first judge to reach the merits of whether or not the law is constitutional. Interestingly, Steeh sided against the Obama Administration’s three procedural arguments that would have effectively delayed any litigation challenging the ACA until 2014, before completely rejecting the plaintiff’s claim that the law is unconstitutional.

This case is far from over, however. Judge Steeh’s decision will appeal to the notoriously right-wing Sixth Circuit, a Court which tried to manipulate federal election law to benefit the Ohio Republican Party in 2008 before being unanimously smacked down by the Supreme Court just three days later. If the Sixth Circuit reverses Judge Steeh, that decision is almost certain to be reviewed by the Supreme Court.

In the end, however, there is no question that Steeh reached the correct decision. Even ultra-conservative Justice Scalia agrees that Congress has sweeping power to regulate “economic activity,” and there is simply no question that health reform will have an enormous economic impact on the health insurance market. In other words, today’s decision will be the first of many affirming the Affordable Care Act.

Pressure has been mounting on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce since a ThinkProgress investigation published Tuesday revealed that the right-wing business group may be using donations from foreign corporations to bankroll its general account — the same account that is being used to launch an unprecedented $75 million attack ad campaign against progressive candidates. Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) and others have called for an FEC investigation into the Chamber, and numerous media outlets have pressed the group for answers. Meanwhile, the Chamber continues to stonewall. Today, while stumping for Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley (D), President Obama referenced the investigation, warning that “groups that receive foreign money” are a “threat to our democracy”:

OBAMA: Just this week, we learned that one of the largest groups paying for these ad regularly takes in money from foreign corporations. So groups that receive foreign money are spending huge sums to influence American elections. And they won’t tell you where the money for the ads come from.

So this isn’t just a threat to Democrats. All Republicans should be concerned. Independents should be concerned. This is a threat to our democracy. The American people deserve to know who’s trying to influence their elections. And if we just stand by and allow the special interests to silence anybody who’s got the guts to stand up to them, our country’s going to be a very different place.

Watch it:

During his January State of the Union address, Obama warned that the Supreme Court’s recent Citizens United decision “will open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our election.” And in his weekly address in September, Obama warned again, “Foreign-controlled corporations seeking to influence our democracy are able to spend freely in order to swing an election toward a candidate they prefer.” His prediction, widely mocked by conservatives, has unfortunately proven prescient.