Health Care Industry Front Group Cheers Death Of The Public Option With Large Washington Post Ad
Health Care Industry Front Group Cheers Death Of The Public Option With Large Washington Post Ad
One of the most aggressive industry front groups fighting to defeat health care reform has been the Conservatives for Patients’ Rights (CPR), run by disgraced hospital executive Rick Scott and represented by the same public relations (CRC Public Relations) firm that brought us the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth.
The group’s main target was the public option. CPR fear-mongered that President Obama wanted to bring scary, ineffective, socialized Canadian and British health care to the United States. It ran dishonest public relations campaign, even tricking British and Canadian citizens into appearing in an anti-government-run health care ad. While portraying itself to the public as an honest broker in the health care negotiations with President Obama, the industry was simultaneously pouring massive funds into front groups like CPR to kill reform.
Yesterday, Scott released a statement claiming credit for the defeat of the public option and saying he would be taking a “breather”:
Accordingly, we’re stepping back from the debate and taking a breather. In the meantime, and consistent with our mission, CPR will remain focused on promoting the Four Pillars of Free-Market Health Care Reform — Choice, Competition, Accountability and Personal Responsibility — pillars that will lead to lower costs and better patient outcomes.”
Today, CPR has a large, nearly full-page ad in the Washington Post cheering the public option’s death. The top of the ad has a tombstone reading, “PUBLIC OPTION PLAN R.I.P. January 27, 2010.” More text from the ad:
In his State of the Union Address, the President didn’t doom his Public Option health care plan with faint praise, he simply BURIED it with deafening silence. [...]
Finally, those of us who opposed your government-run Public Option plan can close this chapter.
By educating on the perils of your government-run Public Option plan, we achieved our goals to protect patients’ rights and stop a government takeover of our health care choices. Today, we join with our fellow Americans concerned with protecting patients’ rights to celebrate that our months of hard work finally paid off.
ThinkProgress spoke to CPR spokesman Brian Burgess of CRC Public Relations, who said that the ad was running only in the Washington Post.
CPR was not reflecting the views of most “fellow Americans” in its campaign. Over the summer, there was actually strong public support for the public option. Through an aggressive campaign, the health care industry spread misinformation to create opposition.
- Comments
- 154
ABC Panelists Criticize Ailes’ Evasion Of Why Fox News Cut Away From Obama-House GOP Conversation
ABC Panelists Criticize Ailes’ Evasion Of Why Fox News Cut Away From Obama-House GOP Conversation
As ThinkProgress reported last week, Fox News was the only major cable news network to not show the entirety of President Obama’s conversation with House Republicans at their annual retreat. Fox cut away from the event 20 minutes early and instead began attacking the President for “lecturing” to the lawmakers.
Yesterday on ABC’s This Week, Arianna Huffington challenged Fox News President Roger Ailes about this decision:
HUFFINGTON: Roger, you clearly are in ratings, but if you are in ratings, can you explain to me why FOX went away from the meeting the president was having in — why did you go away, 20 minutes before the end?
AILES: Because we’re the most trusted name in news.
Guest host Barbara Walters cut off the conversation though, since the show was over. However, discussion on the topic then continued in the green room, even though Ailes wasn’t present. Both Huffington and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman criticized the network for its hypocrisy:
HUFFINGTON: Their framing of the President is that he’s radical, that he’s taking us down a dark, fascist or Bolshevik future — depending on the day. And there he was, rational, charming, and in full command of his facts. So the narrative fell apart and so the cameras stopped showing what was happening.
KRUGMAN: Yeah, I mean it’s — I thought it was actually quite funny except it has real consequences. There you have Roger Ailes, with this powerful, popular news network, whining about how the media are unfair to Republicans. I mean, he is a powerful person in the media — and of course, you know, “Fair and Balanced” is truly Orwellian and we know that. So it’s clear that Fox — I felt like yelling to him, “you can’t handle the truth,” because that was what was actually happening on the Fox coverage.
Watch it:
Transcript: More »
San Francisco Commonwealth Club postpones O’Keefe event.
San Francisco Commonwealth Club postpones O’Keefe event.
Controversial right-wing activist James O’Keefe, whom the FBI recently arrested for trying to tamper with Sen. Mary Landrieu’s (D-LA) phones, was supposed to hold his first public event since getting out of jail at the San Francisco Commonwealth Club today. But that event has now been “postponed.” The Commonwealth Club’s Director of Public Relations, Riki Rafner, told ThinkProgress that O’Keefe “could no longer make the event in person and he chose to postpone it until he could.” However, the San Francisco Chronicle notes that the club is willing to reschedule when O’Keefe is ready. The Salt Lake County GOP also recently canceled O’Keefe as its featured speaker at its Lincoln Day Dinner on Feb. 4.
CBS Allows Focus On The Family Advocacy Ad During Super Bowl, But Bans Gay Dating Site Ad
CBS Allows Focus On The Family Advocacy Ad During Super Bowl, But Bans Gay Dating Site Ad
In recent weeks, CBS has been taking heat over its decision to allow Focus on the Family’s pro-life ad, featuring Heisman winner Tim Tebow, to air during the Super Bowl. The right wing quickly rushed to the defense of Focus on the Family. Former Alaska governor Sarah Palin urged CBS to “just do the right thing. Don’t cave. Have the backbone to run the ad.” This week, the far-right American Family Association (AFA) launched an action alert asking people to let CBS know they support the ad.
CBS revealed that it is open to accepting other “responsibly produced” advocacy ads, besides the Focus on the Family spot. “We have for some time moderated our approach to advocacy submissions after it became apparent that our stance did not reflect public sentiment or industry norms,” spokesman Dana McClintock said.
However, yesterday CBS announced that it had rejected a commercial for a gay dating site called ManCrunch.com:
“After reviewing the ad, which is entirely commercial in nature, our standards and practices department decided not to accept this particular spot,” said CBS spokeswoman Shannon Jacobs. “We are always open to working with a client on alternative submissions.”
Elissa Buchter, a spokesperson for the site, called CBS’s rejection “straight-up discrimination.” A letter from CBS said that the ad was “not within the Network’s broadcast standards for Super Bowl Sunday.” The commercial “shows two men excitedly watching the game, before their hands brush as they both reach into a bowl of chips. Suddenly, the two begin making out, much to the shock of a guy sitting close by.” The New York Post concluded that the ad is “no more racy than nearly any beer commercial not starring the Budweiser Clydesdales.” Watch it:
CBS’s decision to accept the Focus on the Family ad was controversial because most networks have a policy of banning advocacy ads during the Super Bowl, and have rejected ones by groups such as MoveOn.org and PETA in the past. Last year, NBC rejected a 30-second public service announcement about marriage equality to run during the Super Bowl.
Andrew Sullivan writes, “In the past, issues ads were deemed non-kosher – but if it’s a Christianist and virulently anti-gay organization behind the ad, it appears to be ok. But if it’s a humorous commercial ad for a gay dating service, CBS says no. … There is one reason this ad was denied. Its gay content was deemed offensive to football fans, while an anti-abortion issues ad wasn’t. That’s called blatant discrimination and if it doesn’t lead to aggressive protests I’ll be very surprised.”
Fox Cuts Away From Obama-GOP Conversation In Order To Get A Head Start On Attacks: He Was ‘Lecturing’
Fox Cuts Away From Obama-GOP Conversation In Order To Get A Head Start On Attacks: He Was ‘Lecturing’
President Obama held a candid, face-to-face conversation with House Republicans today at their annual retreat in Baltimore. After Obama gave his remarks, he had to answer tough questions from Republican lawmakers about health care, the budget, taxes, and other issues. Although the riveting exchange lasted over an hour, both CNN and MSNBC aired the entire event.
However, at 1:11 p.m. ET — when there was still 20 minutes left to go — Fox News decided to cut away and begin its commentary. Anchor Trace Gallagher’s immediate reaction was that Obama was being too “combative” and “lecturing” — like he was at his State of the Union address. Correspondent Bret Baier agreed, saying there was “a little bit of that,” but conceded that there was a “decent…give-and-take on the specifics.” Watch it:
Unsurprisingly, Fox is echoing a Republican talking point. Several Republicans complained that Obama was lecturing them in his State of the Union speech:
– “I felt like he was admonishing Congress and certainly lecturing Republicans, accusing us of being an obstructionist party, when what it is we’re about is trying to focus on the issue, which is control the spending and let’s go about creating an environment for jobs.” — House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA)
– “The address was ‘more of a lecture, I thought, in tone,’ [Cornyn] said, but Obama ‘gives a great speech.’” — Rep. John Cornyn (R-TX)
– “In a word, ‘lecture’ [is what I thought of Obama's State of the Union speech]. I think there was quite a bit of lecturing, not leading in that, as opposed to Governor McDonnell’s follow-up comments, quite inspiring his connection with the people. He absolutely gets it, he understands government’s appropriate role.” — Former Alaska governor Sarah Palin, 1/27/10, Fox News
Not only did Fox cut away from the Obama-GOP exchange, but the network then brought on Rep. Peter King (R-NY) — who was still in New York “because of the whole 9/11 controversy with the trials” — about 10 minutes later to start commenting on Obama’s performance. A look at what was happening on all the networks at that time:
Boehner Feigns Ignorance That His GOP Retreat Is Attended By Goldman Sachs, Other Corporate Lobbyists
Boehner Feigns Ignorance That His GOP Retreat Is Attended By Goldman Sachs, Other Corporate Lobbyists
This weekend, Republican leaders will convene at the Renaissance Harborplace Hotel in Baltimore to plot strategy, socialize, and plan both legislative and campaign themes for the year. Yesterday morning, ThinkProgress caught up with House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH), who confirmed that the Congressional Institute — a nonprofit run by Republican corporate lobbyists — is sponsoring the retreat. Normally, such lobbyist-sponsored soirées would be illegal under House ethics rules. But by forming an ostensibly nonpartisan educational front called the Congressional Institute, lobbyists are able to skirt any such oversight. However, Boehner told ThinkProgress that he did not know if any lobbyists would be present at the retreat:
TP: For your retreat this weekend, is the Congressional Institute attending or sponsoring at all?
BOEHNER: They’ve always sponsored retreats for both Democrats and Republicans.
TP: Are any of their lobbyists attending this weekend?
BOEHNER: I don’t know. [...] I said I don’t know.
Watch it:
Boehner is wrong when he claims that the Congressional Institute sponsors Democratic retreats. According to the Politico, House Democratic retreats are not paid for by any special interest funds or the lobbyist-run Congressional Institute.
To fact-check Boehner’s sheepish reply that he simply didn’t know if lobbyists would be at the retreat, I visited the Renaissance hotel in Baltimore yesterday afternoon. Upon arriving at the front desk, I spoke to Patrick Deitz, a staff assistant for the Congressional Institute, who confirmed that Congressional Institute board member Michael Johnson was upstairs at the retreat, and that Dan Meyer, another board member, was on his way. Johnson, a lobbyist at the OB-C Group, touts himself as a “Republican heavyweight” whose firm represents the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, JP Morgan Chase, and the health insurance giant WellPoint. Meyer, a longtime Republican operative and chairman of the Congressional Institute, works for the Duberstein Group, where he represents BP, Goldman Sachs, HealthNet, and AHIP, the umbrella trade group for the health insurance industry. Meyer’s colleague at his lobbying firm, Steve Champlin, urged insurance industry executives last year to fight ruthlessy to kill health reform, proclaiming, don’t “give comfort to the enemy who is down.”
After informing Deitz and other Congressional Institute staffers that I work for ThinkProgress and wanted to interview some of the lobbyists in attendance, another staffer, named Mary, told me to leave the building or else I would be arrested. Mary, who refused to give her business card or last name, told Deitz not to tell me his last name either. During the course of the conversation with Congressional Institute staffers, a gaggle of men dressed in business attire discussed technology policy behind me. One of them had a name tag that read John Sampson; who according to his LinkedIn profile is the chief lobbyist for Microsoft.
Unfortunately, it seems unlikely that ThinkProgress will be able to attend, or even approach the building, for the lobbyist-organized GOP retreat. If we could, we might witness quite a reunion. Many of the lobbyists running the Congressional Institute are former top staffers to Newt Gingrich, who is addressing the gathering. Here is a picture of Congressional Institute board members Meyer and Arne Christenson — now a lobbyist for American Express — plotting strategy for Gingrich back in 1995.
Responding to the State of the Union, Boehner was quick to attack the administration for supposedly lacking transparency. But for a retreat planning public policy, Boehner apparently prefers to keep the corporate lobbyists involved behind closed doors — and even refuses to acknowledge their attendance.
Corporation Runs For Maryland Congressional Seat To Protest SCOTUS Campaign Finance Decision
Corporation Runs For Maryland Congressional Seat To Protest SCOTUS Campaign Finance Decision
Last week, “all five of the [Supreme] Court’s conservatives joined together…to invalidate a sixty-three year-old ban on corporate money in federal elections,” a move that Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) said “opens the floodgates for the purchases and sale of the law” by big corporations. While progressives were outraged by the court’s judicial activism, many Republican politicians applauded the decision, with RNC Chairman Michael Steele even calling the ruling nothing more than “an affirmation of the constitutional rights provided to Americans under the first amendment.”
The progressive PR firm Murray Hill Inc. has announced that it plans to satirically run for Congress in the Republican primary in Maryland’s 8th congressional district to protest the Supreme Court’s disastrous decision. A press release on its website says that the company wants to “eliminate the middle man” and run for Congress directly, rather than influencing it with corporate dollars:
“Until now,” Murray Hill Inc. said in a statement, “corporate interests had to rely on campaign contributions and influence peddling to achieve their goals in Washington. But thanks to an enlightened Supreme Court, now we can eliminate the middle-man and run for office ourselves.”
“The strength of America,” Murray Hill Inc. says, “is in the boardrooms, country clubs and Lear jets of America’s great corporations. We’re saying to Wal-Mart, AIG and Pfizer, if not you, who? If not now, when?” [...]
Campaign Manager William Klein promises an aggressive, historic campaign that “puts people second” or even third. “The business of America is business, as we all know,” Klein says. “But now, it’s the business of democracy too.” Klein plans to use automated robo-calls, “Astroturf” lobbying and computer-generated avatars to get out the vote.
Murray Hill Inc. plans on spending “top dollar” to protect its investment. “It’s our democracy,” Murray Hill Inc. says, “We bought it, we paid for it, and we’re going to keep it.”
Murray Hill Inc. released its first campaign video Monday. A narrator in the video explains, “The way we see it, corporate America has been the driving force behind Congress for years. But now it’s time we got behind the wheel ourselves.” Watch it:
Progressive Victory In Oregon: Voters Approve Tax Hikes On Corporations And The Wealthy To Close Budget Gap
Progressive Victory In Oregon: Voters Approve Tax Hikes On Corporations And The Wealthy To Close Budget Gap
As states around the country face budget crises, “deficit peacocks” continue to demand cutting social spending while ruling out tax increases on those who have benefited immensely from years of conservative policies. Oregon is one of the states that is faced with a budget crisis on the horizon. With a projected shortfall of $2.5 billion between 2009 and 2011, the state is on the verge of having to freeze salaries for public employees, end forest protection rules, and make deep cuts to education spending. Oregon’s deficit peacocks, of course, argued vigorously against considering any new taxes, arguing that harmful cuts to social spending were inevitable.
Oregon progressives, however, had a different idea. Pointing out that Oregon has one of the lowest corporate tax rates in the nation — the corporate minimum income tax is a paltry $10 a year — and that Oregon’s wealthy have benefited enormously from years of conservative policies — they organized around two ballot initiatives, Measures 66 and 67, that would raise taxes on the upper-income tax bracket and corporations, which would protect $1 billion in services while not raising taxes on 97.5% of taxpayers and 93% of small business owners.
Corporate leaders formed front groups like Oregonians Against Job-Killing Taxes and flooded the airwaves with fear mongering ads about how small tax increases on the wealthiest Oregonians would harm the state. Unions, community organizations, and progressive businesses fought back with a grassroots campaign of their own in favor of the measures. Yesterday, Oregon’s voters went to the polls and “handily” passed both measures, marking the first time since 1930 Oregon voters had voted to increase taxes:
Backers of two Oregon tax increases say the easy victories Tuesday night are an indication of voter support for public services. Measure 66 will raise taxes on upper income households and Measure 67 will increase taxes on most businesses. Both measures passed by about 54-to-46 percent. [...]
The director of the Vote Yes campaign, Kevin Looper, says in the end, voters agreed. Kevin Looper: “This wasn’t about trying to soak the rich. This was about trying to protect the middle class. And it is the case that you have to ask those who can afford to, to pay a little more in order to do that. But these taxes were not a huge burden to be asking for those who can afford to, to cover. And I think most of them understood that.”
Following the passage of both measures, Oregon Republican Party Chairman Bob Tiernan was unable to cope with the fact that voters flatly rejected conservative free market fundamentalism, saying that the “success of a nationally-bankrolled campaign does not accurately reflect the views of all Oregonians. Voters across the state want their legislators to tighten their belts along with the rest of us.”
The truth is that Oregon is hardly alone when it comes to rejecting the right’s anti-tax philosophy. 29 states have “passed tax and fee increases totaling $24 billion this budget year, according to the National Governors Association, up from $1.5 billion a year earlier. ” Reflecting on the Oregon victory, Calitics notes, “What it also shows is that progressive policies, supported by smart progressive organizing led by folks such as former US Senate candidate Steve Novick and the Oregon Bus Project, which reached out to younger voters and had a strong ground game, can beat well-funded, well-organized corporate/teabagger alliances. ”
O’Reilly Gripes That Haiti Benefit Organizers Are Ignoring Him — After His Network Refused To Air The Event
O’Reilly Gripes That Haiti Benefit Organizers Are Ignoring Him — After His Network Refused To Air The Event
Last night on his Fox News show, Bill O’Reilly bashed the Hope for Haiti Now global benefit, which aired live on Jan. 22. The telethon has so far raised $61 million in donations from the general public for Haiti relief efforts. O’Reilly said that he had concerns about how the money was going to be distributed, and the fact that the telethon “could not or would not supply us a spokesperson” to go on his show was “not a good sign”:
O’REILLY: Factor Follow-up segment tonight, getting charity to Haiti. As you may know, a TV telethon last Friday raised nearly $60 million to help the folks at Factor, but now comes the hard part: getting the money to the people who are suffering. Now, we tried to get someone attached to the telethon to speak with us tonight. We were not successful, and that is not a good sign. [...]
I want to be very careful in this discussion. I want Americans to be charitable to the Haitian people. I think they need it. I, myself, have given money to that island nation for a long time. We called up the telethon, which was based out of MTV, and said, Look, we just need somebody to just run through the process where the money goes, how it’s distributed, what the time frame is, all of that. We’ve got DVD albums in play. We’ve got all kinds of stuff coming in.
They could not or would not supply us a spokesperson tonight. And that just worries me.
Watch it:
As Crooks and Liars points out, O’Reilly griping that the Hope for Haiti organizers are ignoring him rings hollow, considering that Fox News was one of the few networks to not air the benefit concert; both CNN and MSNBC did. Ironically, today on Fox News, Neil Cavuto did a whole segment praising the benefit, saying that it made him wonder whether “the best way to raise aid for all the disaster victims is from celebrity-hosted television shows and not from the government trying to get it from taxpayers.” Too bad his network didn’t agree.
Fox News Devastated Over Arrest Of ACORN Pimp, Says The Story Probably Needs ‘A Lot Of Context’
Fox News Devastated Over Arrest Of ACORN Pimp, Says The Story Probably Needs ‘A Lot Of Context’
Fox News has been one of the biggest supporters of James O’Keefe, who is infamous for dressing up as a pimp and videotaping ACORN staffers offering to help the supposed pimp and his prostitutes secure funding for a brothel. The network constantly replayed coverage from his operation. In September, Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace named O’Keefe his “Power Player of the Week,” calling him an “undercover reporter” and a “fascinating character.”
Yesterday, the FBI arrested O’Keefe and three others — “charged with entering federal property under false pretenses with the intent of committing a felony” — saying that they were plotting to wiretap Sen. Mary Landrieu’s office (D-LA). One of the other men, Robert Flanagan, is the son of William Flanagan, the acting U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Louisiana. Two of the men “dressed as telephone company employees” and showed up to Landrieu’s New Orleans office, saying they had to “fix phone problems.” O’Keefe was already there and was “positioning his cell phone in his hand to videotape the operation”:
After being asked, the staffer gave Basel access to the main phone at the reception desk. The staffer told investigators that Basel manipulated the handset. He also tried to call the main office phone using his cell phone, and said the main line wasn’t working. Flanagan did the same.
They then told the staffer they needed to perform repair work on the main phone system and asked where the telephone closet was located. The staffer showed the men to the main General Services Administration office on the 10th floor, and both went in. There, a GSA employee asked for the men’s credentials, after which they stated they left them in their vehicle. The U.S. Marshal’s Service apprehended all four men shortly thereafter.
Fox News aired a report about the arrests shortly after the news broke. However, reporter Tim Gaughan tried to downplay the news:
GAUGHAN: [It's a] very weird story that probably needs a lot of context and a lot of looking into, which is what we’re going to do here. I just wanted to get it on the record with it right now.
SHEP SMITH: So, they’re saying basically, they’re in there — It sounds as if what they’re saying is, they’re looking for some ACORN hanky panky and they try to tap into Mary Landrieu’s telephone to get it.
GAUGHAN: That could be one way of looking at it, yes.
Watch it:
Ironically, at the end of the Power Player segment in September, Wallace said, “O’Keefe says he wants to do more undercover films, and he has some targets in mind. He says his friends always tell him the next sting will never work.” “I disagree with them,” replied O’Keefe. “I think that I’ll come up with a new strategy and I’ll get them to say yes.” Looks like O’Keefe’s friends were right.
Citizens United Decision: ‘A Rejection Of The Common Sense Of The American People’
Citizens United Decision: ‘A Rejection Of The Common Sense Of The American People’
In what could prove to be the most consequential Supreme Court decision in decades, all five of the Court’s conservatives joined together today to invalidate a sixty-three year-old ban on corporate money in federal elections. In the process, the Court overruled a twenty year-old precedent permitting such bans on corporate electioneering; and it ignored the protests of the four more moderate justices in dissent. As Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the dissenters:
Today’s decision is backwards in many senses. It elevates the majority’s agenda over the litigants’ submissions, facial attacks over as-applied claims, broad constitutional theories over narrow statutory grounds, individual dissenting opinions over precedential holdings, assertion over tradition, absolutism over empiricism, rhetoric over reality. Our colleagues have arrived at the conclusion that Austin must be overruled and that §203 is facially unconstitutional only after mischaracterizing both the reach and rationale of those authorities, and after bypassing or ignoring rules of judicial restraint used to cabin the Court’s lawmaking power. … 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.
The majority, for its part, claimed that corporate political spending must be protected to prevent “taking the right to speak from some and giving it to others,” but they are simply wrong to claim that this is a case about free speech. Prior to Citizens United, no law prohibited anyone from saying anything they wanted. Corporate CEOs and other wealthy individuals could spend their own massive salaries to run political ads on TV. People who are less rich than corporate CEOs could pool their money together via organizations. The only thing that wasn’t permitted before Citizens United is that the CEO of Bank of America could not tap into Bank of America’s massive, multi-billion dollar treasury to defeat any lawmaker who thinks that TARP banks should pay back the federal government after it took expensive and unprecedented steps to prevent a total collapse of the U.S. banking system.
Ultimately, however, today’s decision does far more than simply provide Fortune 500 companies with a massive megaphone to blast their political views to the masses; it also empowers them to drown out any voices that disagree with them. In 2008, the Obama and McCain campaigns combined spent just over $1.1 billion, an enormous, record-breaking sum at the time. $1.1 billion is nothing, however, compared to the billions of dollars in tax subsidies given to the oil industry every year, or the $117 billion fee President Obama wants to impose on the Wall Street bankers who created the Great Recession. Indeed, with hundreds of billions of dollars of corporate profits at stake every time Congress begins a session, wealthy corporations would be foolish not to spend tens of billions of dollars every election cycle to make sure that their interests are protected. No one, including the candidates themselves, have the ability to compete with such giant expenditures.
The good news is that lawmakers are already considering ways to mitigate the damage caused by Citizens United, and a number of options exist, such as requiring additional disclosures by corporations engaged in electioneering, empowering shareholders to demand that their investment not be spent to advance candidates they disapprove of, or possibly even requiring shareholders to approve a corporation’s decision to influence an election before the company may do so. At the end of the day, however, many extremely well-moneyed corporations will still succeed in unleashing their treasuries on the electorate, and drowning out opposing voices.
GOP Is Overjoyed At The Unprecedented Influence Corporations Will Now Have In Federal Campaigns
GOP Is Overjoyed At The Unprecedented Influence Corporations Will Now Have In Federal Campaigns
During the 2008 presidential campaign, the conservative group Citizens United made a movie critical of Hillary Clinton but was barred from distributing it on local cable systems because federal courts said it “looked and sounded like a long campaign ad, and therefore should be regulated like one.” The Supreme Court then took up the case and in its much-anticipated decision, today ruled 5-4 to allow corporations and unions to spend unlimited funds in support for, or opposition of, federal candidates. The monumental ruling throws out a “a 63-year-old law designed to restrain the influence of big business and unions on elections.
One Republican attorney said that the new ruling basically turns the political landscape into the “Wild Wild West.” Another GOP election lawyer said that the ruling represents “a huge sea-change in campaign finance law. The Court went all the way. It really relieves any restrictions on corporate spending on independent advertising.”
As Common Cause noted, the ruling “will enhance the ability of the deepest-pocketed special interests to influence elections and the U.S. Congress.” U.S. PIRG called it a “shocking burst of judicial activism” that treats corporations “in the same manner as ordinary citizens.” Fred Wertheimer of Democracy 21 said the ruling will “create unprecedented opportunities for corporate ‘influence-buying‘ corruption.”
The ruling is a giant win for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the big corporations, which tend to donate heavily to Republicans. Many Republicans have therefore come out and praised today’s decision:
– Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX): “It is about a nonprofit group’s ability to speak about the public issue. I can’t think of a more fundamental First Amendment issue. … [The ruling could] open up resources that have not previously been available [for Republicans].” [NYT]
– Rep. Steve King (R-IA): “The Constitution protects the rights of citizens and employers to express their viewpoints on political issues. Today’s Supreme Court decision affirms the Bill of Rights and is a victory for liberty and free speech.” [Statement]
– Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN): “If the freedom of speech means anything, it means protecting the right of private citizens to voice opposition or support for their elected representatives. The fact that the Court overturned a 20-year precedent speaks volumes about the importance of this issue.” [Statement]
– Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY): The court took a step toward “restoring the First Amendment rights [of corporations and unions]. … By previously denying this right, the government was picking winners and losers.” [AP]
– RNC Chairman Michael Steele: “Today’s decision by the Supreme Court in Citizens United v. FEC, serves as an affirmation of the constitutional rights provided to Americans under the first amendment. Free speech strengthens our democracy.” [Statement]
– Senate Candidate Marco Rubio: “Today’s SCOTUS decision on McCain-Feingold is a victory for free speech.” [Statement]
The Court’s ruling also struck down part of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform legislation “that barred union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns.” Sen. Russ Feingold called the Court’s ruling a “terrible mistake,” but pointed out that it “does not affect McCain-Feingold’s soft money ban, which will continue to prevent corporate contributions to the political parties from corrupting the political process.” “The Supreme Court chose to roll back laws that have limited the role of corporate money in federal elections since Teddy Roosevelt was president,” he said. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) reacted similarly, saying he was “disappointed” in the decision.
O’Reilly: It’s so awful when people intrude on your vacation with their cameras.
O’Reilly: It’s so awful when people intrude on your vacation with their cameras.
Yesterday on his Fox News show, Bill O’Reilly tried to gripe with former Alaska governor Sarah Palin about what a tough life famous people — like themselves — have. O’Reilly said the worst is when he goes on vacation because there are always people trying to take his picture and intrude on his personal time:
O’REILLY: When you go on vacation it must be very difficult. It is for me. … Everybody has got the little camera. … Because I know — because when I became famous, and I never thought I would be, all of a sudden I couldn’t go anywhere without them clicking my picture. But that intrusion, does that weigh upon you psychologically. … I think that’s the worse thing about being famous, that intrusion.
Watch it:
O’Reilly, of course, knows plenty about the media following people and harassing them while they’re on vacation — since he sends his producers to do just that to anyone who criticizes him.
Transcript: More »
Brown Justifies Denying 9/11 Rescue Workers Aid: ‘We Had To Take Care Of Our Own Priorities First’
Brown Justifies Denying 9/11 Rescue Workers Aid: ‘We Had To Take Care Of Our Own Priorities First’
As the Plum Line reported yesterday, State Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA), the Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate special election on Tuesday, voted on October 17, 2001 to deny financial aid to Red Cross rescue workers who had volunteered with 9/11 recovery efforts. As a state representative at the time, Brown was one out of only three legislators who had opposed the overwhelmingly bipartisan measure.
At a campaign rally today in Hyannis, ThinkProgress caught up with Brown for comment on why he voted against the measure:
TP: In 2001, you voted against 9/11 recovery workers, giving them aid, do you have any comment on this story?
BROWN: Yes, it was a time when our budget was down. We had a lot of cuts unfortunately, and we had to take care of our own priorities first.
Watch it:
During the same month Brown was voting down efforts to support 9/11 rescue workers, he was pushing a bill to appropriate a tax-subsidized bond to build a golf course in Norfolk, a city in his district. “Priorities,” indeed.
Also during the same period, he was busy fighting for tax subsidies for corporate interests. According to a 2002 article in the Lowell Sun, Brown scored a perfect pro-corporate tax subsidy rating in the months following his anti-9/11 rescue workers vote:
House members who supported decreasing the minimum corporate excise tax which was rejected were also given credit. Positive marks were also given to representatives who voted in favor of term limits for the speaker, voted against increasing the auto excise tax, and voted in favor of freezing the unemployment insurance rates. [...] Rep. Scott Brown, a Wrentham Republican, and Rep. Brad Hill, an Ipswich Republican, were the other two lawmakers to receive 100 percent taxpayer friendly ratings.
For Brown’s “priorities,” golf courses and corporations are above the Massachusetts Red Cross volunteers who rushed to the site of the twin towers after the terror attack.
Wall Street Journal op-ed propagates Rasmussen’s false claim that he’s ‘never’ worked for a political party.
Wall Street Journal op-ed propagates Rasmussen’s false claim that he’s ‘never’ worked for a political party.
ThinkProgress recently noted that Politico failed to fact check right-leaning pollster Scott Rasmussen’s false claim that he “has never been a campaign pollster or consultant for candidates seeking office.” Yesterday, Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal fell for the same trap, publishing an op-ed by Democratic pollsters — and Fox News contributors — Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen about the “virulent attacks from left-wing bloggers” against Rasmussen:
The reaction against him has been strident and harsh. He’s been called an adjunct of the Republican Party when in fact he has never worked for any political party. Nor has he consulted with any candidates seeking elective office.
The attacks on Rasmussen and Gallup follow an effort by the White House to wage war on Fox News and to brand it, as former White House Director of Communications Anita Dunn did, as “not a real news organization.” The move backfired; in time, other news organizations rallied around Fox News. But the message was clear: criticize the White House at your peril.
The falsity comes from Rasmussen’s official bio. But according to the non-partisan Center for Public Integrity, Rasmussen has in fact been a paid consultant for the RNC and President Bush’s 2004 campaign. He accepted $95,500 and $45,500 from each, respectively, for “survey research.” Also, as Media Matters points out, The Wall Street Journal “failed to identify Caddell and Schoen as Fox News contributors, despite their defense of the network.” Nate Silver has more here on Rasmussen’s polling techniques.
Steele Claims He ‘Wasn’t Chairman Of The Party’ At The Time Ensign’s Sex Scandal ‘Took Place’
Steele Claims He ‘Wasn’t Chairman Of The Party’ At The Time Ensign’s Sex Scandal ‘Took Place’
In June 2009, Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) announced at a press conference that in the previous year he had “violated the vows” of his marriage by carrying on an affair with one of his campaign staffers, who was married to one of his Senate staffers. It was later revealed that Ensign had his parents pay the couple $96,000 and arranged for his former legislative assistant, Doug Hampton, “to join a political consulting firm and lined up several donors as his lobbying clients.” Ensign and his staff then “repeatedly intervened on the companies’ behalf with federal agencies, often after urging from Mr. Hampton.”
In an interview with RNC Chairman Michael Steele taped this week for “Face to Face With Jon Ralston,” Ralston asked Steele if he would be “outraged” if “a Democratic senator had an affair with a staffer, had his parents pay her off, fired both her and her husband who worked for him and then tried to get the husband jobs.” First, Steele claimed he didn’t know who Ralston was talking about. But when Ralston said it was Ensign, Steele said it didn’t have an “opinion” on it because he “wasn’t chairman of the party at the time all that took place”:
STEELE: I don’t know. Who is, who is the individual you’re talking about?
RALSTON: The individual happens to be John Ensign. I was just putting the shoe on the other foot. You haven’t said anything about John Ensign because he’s one of yours. You’re Mr. Double Standard.
STEELE: Really?
RALSTON: You are.
STEELE: Is that how you take that?
RALSTON: I’m asking ya.
STEELE: I wasn’t chairman of the party at the time all that took place so I have no opinion on it.
RALSTON: What are you talking about? It took place last year.
STEELE: I wasn’t chairman of the party.
Watch it:
Unless Steele is somehow claiming that the scandal doesn’t concern him because he wasn’t chairman while the actual affair was happening, his statement is absolutely ridiculous. Steele was elected RNC chairman on Jan. 30, 2009. Ensign admitted his affair on June 16, 2009, and the New York Times reported on the potential ethical problems of his efforts to get Hampton a job on Oct. 1, 2009.
Steele hasn’t always acted as though the Ensign scandal preceded him. In July 2009, he dismissed Ensign’s scandal as “old news, old-school.” Additionally, this isn’t the first time that Steele has tried to downplay controversy by re-writing the time line of his chairmanship. Last week, he claimed that he wrote his new book before he was chairman, despite making multiple references in the book to events that happened during his chairmanship.
Right-wing publications receive exclusive credentials to cover the Tea Party Convention.
Right-wing publications receive exclusive credentials to cover the Tea Party Convention.
Having previously announced that the National Tea Party Convention would be closed to the press, organizers announced yesterday that they would reverse course. However, the Nashville Post reports that only five media organizations will receive credentials for the entire convention, and they all conveniently happen to be right-wing outlets:
The five approved outlets are: Fox News, Breitbart.com, Townhall.com, World Net Daily and The Wall Street Journal. All five are widely considered to be Right-leaning organizations.
The press release explains that the requests for credentials have been overwhelming and that to preserve the nature of the event they are limiting press availability.
Former Alaska governor Sarah Palin will deliver a key note address at the convention and has asked that all media be allowed to cover it. On Tuesday, organizers pledged to adhere to her request but clarified that only the specially credentialed media would have access to the entire event.
Fox News chyron cast Dorgan and Dodd as ‘defecting Democrats.’
Fox News chyron cast Dorgan and Dodd as ‘defecting Democrats.’
This morning, Fox and Friends hosted a segment on the retirements of Sens. Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Byron Dorgan (D-ND), both of whom will not be running for re-election in 2010. Fox News, however, cast the retirements as defections:
Dodd and Dorgan are not “defecting” from the Democratic Party. They are retiring. Rep. Parker Griffith (AL) recently announced that he was switching from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party, but no one else has joined him. (HT: TP Reader AC)
In the House, 14 GOP incumbents have decided not to seek re-election, while 10 Democratic incumbents have made the same announcement. Does this mean Republicans are "dropping like flies"?In the Senate, six Republican incumbents have decided not to seek re-election, while two Democratic incumbents have made the same announcement. Is this evidence of a mass Democratic exodus?
Several Alaska bloggers banned from Palin’s Wasilla book-signing.
Several Alaska bloggers banned from Palin’s Wasilla book-signing.
Approximately 1,000 people attended former Alaska governor Sarah Palin’s book-signing event in her hometown of Wasilla, AK. Despite the enthusiasm, book sales weren’t as high as anticipated. Local bookseller Shannon Cullip set up a table to sell copies of Palin’s book “Going Rogue,” but by noon, she had sold just a third of the books. The Anchorage Daily News also reports that several members of the media — including some local progressive bloggers — were put on a black list and banned from the event:
Not every attendee was welcome. Dennis Zaki, an Anchorage photographer and videographer who until recently ran the Web site Alaska Report, checked in at the media table and was told by Wasilla Recreation and Cultural Services Manager James Hastings that he wasn’t welcome.
“He said because this is a paid event, they can ban anybody they want,” Zaki said. He didn’t fight it, he said.
Zaki said he was told that he and a couple of Alaska bloggers were on the list, with photos to identify them.
Hastings justified the black list by saying, “If I take three minutes on Google I can see that, given the nature of the people who were here, it wasn’t in his (Zaki’s) best interest to be here. He and others could have found themselves in a negative situation.” At a Palin book-signing at the Mall of America earlier this month, officials initially said that “only English speaking press” would be let in.
Gretchen Carlson’s Advice For Obama: Just Lie And Say You Don’t Look At Polls — Like Bush Did
Gretchen Carlson’s Advice For Obama: Just Lie And Say You Don’t Look At Polls — Like Bush Did
A new Gallup poll came out this week showing that President Obama’s approval rating had dropped to 47 percent. In response on Monday, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs dismissed the finding and its “meaninglessness.” “I tell you, if I was a heart patient and Gallup was my EKG, I’d visit my doctor,” Gibbs said. “If you look back, I think five days ago, there was an 11-point spread, now there’s a 1-point spread. I mean, I’m sure a 6-year-old with a crayon could do something not unlike that.”
Fox and Friends brought on former Bush adviser Karl Rove this morning to attack Gibbs and tout the poll number. Instead of his usual whiteboard, Rove had crayon-drawings of Gibbs. Host Steve Doocy mocked Gibbs for pretending to ignore polls, and Rove advised Gibbs to explain to the public that although the public may now hate what the President is doing, they’ll appreciate it later. Host Gretchen Carlson then chimed in with her own advice: Obama should imitate Bush:
CARLSON: Karl, he should have done what your former boss did, George W. Bush — where he said he didn’t look at the polls. And, whether or not that was true, at least he said that from the beginning, and that was the end of the story with regard to polls.
Watch it:
Bush officials didn’t just ignore polls; they looked at them and then decided that what the American people think doesn’t matter (largely because so many of the administration’s decisions were contrary to what the public wanted). Bush stated that he didn’t “give a darn” what the public thought about him. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that “perceptions” of the U.S. abroad didn’t matter, and Vice President Cheney said that he just didn’t care what the American public thinks at all.
Of course, even Bush’s press secretaries would cite polls when they were favorable and then ignore them when they weren’t — which was totally fine with Fox News at the time.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll