Just weeks after Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D-NY) proposed to lower the charge for possession of small amounts of marijuana, the New York Times reports that the proposal is “doomed” thanks to the state’s Republican-controlled Senate.

Despite the fact that Cuomo’s proposal to decriminalize marijuana possession has the backing of Mayor Michael Bloomberg (I), the New York City Police Department, and the city’s top prosecutors, Republicans are digging in their heels on the issue. The state’s Senate Majority Leader has confirmed that the Senate will not take up the proposal, saying, “We do not support decriminalization.”

Gabriel Sayegh, the state director for New York’s chapter of the Drug Policy Alliance advocacy group, expressed his frustration with the political deadlock:

SAYEGH: I’ve been working in Albany for almost 10 years, and I can’t recall a moment when law enforcement has said, ‘We want to have this changed,’ and the Republican Party leaders in the Senate and the Conservative Party are basically saying that they don’t want to do it. This is yet another example of how profoundly backward and dysfunctional this place is.

Republican lawmakers’ intransigence coincides with recent polling that shows Americans’ support for marijuana legalization is at an all-time high. Democratic mayors in Newark and Chicago have also come out in favor of decriminalizing marijuana possession in their cities.

WASHINGTON — Foster Friess, the millionaire who funded outside groups supporting Rick Santorum’s presidential bid and is now helping to bankroll Romney’s Super PAC, thinks that he and other super wealthy donors should be able to give unlimited amounts of money directly to the candidate of their choice without any restrictions.

At the Faith & Freedom Conference last week, Friess bemoaned to ThinkProgress the complications in trying to donate: Citizens United, the famed Supreme Court decision, allowed anyone and any corporation to donate unlimited funds to a campaign, but they were forced to go through a third party that could not coordinate directly with the candidate.

Friess would like to change this. He believes that Super PACs are a superfluous step in the process of pouring millions of dollars into campaigns, and that people like himself and corporations overall should be able to write checks straight to the candidate:

FRIESS: I think all these little loopholes, and — you know, during the campaign I had to be so careful that I didn’t say certain things and keep the Super PAC and the campaign separate. So, I was paranoid to make sure that I followed the rules carefully. So, it’d be nice to get rid of that so that each person could give to the candidate of his choice as much money as he wanted and it was fully disclosed. So, I’m wholeheartedly behind Tim Pawlenty in that.

Watch it:

Citizens United shook the very bedrock of campaign finance by allowing unlimited donations to campaigns. Its effects are already clear: Sheldon Adelson, another funder in the vein of Friess, will soon have spent $71 million on supporting Republicans. Friess is not the first to advocate for direct unlimited contributions, either: Mitt Romney himself has pushed for it.

Unlimited contributions are harmful in that they give the very rich and corporations bigger leverage in how elections turn out, despite the fact that corporations cannot vote. Poor and middle class Americans are unable to pour in the kind of huge contributions that a corporation can, and so their needs often go unnoticed. But Friess may be correct in that direct donations would create more transparency — in the past four years, the amount of undisclosed spending has risen by 47 percent.

This November, voters won’t just choose the next President of the United States, they will vote on referendums and state constitutional amendments that may determine the course of public policy in their states in a number of subject areas. Currently, 127 questions are certified for spots on 33 statewide ballots and 104 of them will be voted on in November. Here are ten of the most important policies that will be voted on in November:

1. Health Care in Alabama, Florida, Montana, Wyoming: Voters in four states, Alabama, Florida, Montana, and Wyoming will vote on whether to alter their state constitutions to essentially nullify the Affordable Care Act’s requirement to carry insurance or pay slightly more income taxes. Assuming the Supreme Court upholds the Constitution in the pending health care case, these amendments would have no lawful effect because a state cannot constitutionally block a federal law.

2. State Land Seizure in Arizona: Speaking of the unconstitutionality of nullification, Arizona’s voters will vote on an amendment that would declare state sovereignty “over the air, water, public lands, wildlife and other natural resources” within Arizona’s borders. The question, which was referred by the state legislature, is widely viewed as an unconstitutional effort to seize federal lands.

3. Abortion in Florida, Montana: Voters in Florida and Montana will decide whether they want to enshrine abortion restrictions in their state constitutions. Florida voters will vote on an amendment to prohibit the use of public funds for abortions except as required by federal law and to save the mother’s life, and stipulate that Florida’s constitution does not include broader rights to abortion than the US Constitution. Montana voters will vote on an amendment that would require parental notification prior to a minor’s abortion absent judicial waiver.

4. Marriage Equality in Maine, Maryland, Washington, Minnesota: Four states, Maine, Maryland, Washington, and Minnesota, have questions on their ballot that could decide whether gay couples enjoy their constitutional right to marry in those states. While voters in Maryland and Washington are asked to ratify state marriage equality laws, Minnesota voters will decide whether marriage should be defined as between one man and one woman in the state constitution. Additionally, Maine voters will have the opportunity to reverse an anti-gay ballot initiative from 2009.

5. Race in Oklahoma, Alabama: Oklahoma and Alabama both have questions on their November ballots concerning race. Oklahomans will vote on whether to ban affirmative action based on race or sex. Alabamans will decide whether racially charged language, referencing segregation in schools, should be removed from the state constitution. Voters defeated a similar measure in 2004 by .2%.

6. Capital Punishment in California: Voters in California will get a chance to end the death penalty in California. If the initiative succeeds, the 724 inmates on death row will have their sentences changed to life in prison without possibility of parole, and California will join the 17 states that have already halted the use of the death penalty. Given recent revelations about the serious problems inherent in utilizing the death penalty, including the risk of executing innocents, this initiative should receive special attention.

7. Guns in Louisiana: In Louisiana, voters will decide whether to alter the state constitution by adding the rights to acquire, transport, carry, transfer, and use firearms in addition to the existing right to keep and bear them. If the amendment is approved, it could be interpreted to gut current gun restrictions in Louisiana, including laws that ban guns on college campuses and in bars.

8. Immigration in Maryland: Maryland voters will decide whether to overturn legislation guaranteeing in-state tuition to undocumented immigrants, and Montana voters will decide the fate of an amendment that would require proof of citizenship in order to receive certain services, including a state permit or license and services for crime victims.

9. Voter IDs in Minnesota: Minnesota voters will face a question concerning voter IDs. If accepted by voters, the amendment would require all voters to show photo ID. Similar requirements in other states have been criticized, particularly for their disparate affects on minority voters and low-income voters. Elderly voters may also be uniquely burdened by photo ID requirements.

10. Religious Funding in Florida: Florida voters will decide with to repeal the “Blaine Amendment” which bans the use of public money on religious organizations. Opponents believe passage of the amendment would “virtually require taxpayer funding of religious activities.”

–Alex Brown

Sometimes things just get lost in translation, but when it comes to Republican websites, the language incongruities appear deliberate. After an initial report found that Nevada Senator Dean Heller’s Spanish website offered up a distinctly milder immigration stance than its English language counterpart, ThinkProgress has discovered other inconsistencies on GOP websites meant to reach Latino constituents.

Heller, the original offender, tried to pull a fast one on Spanish speakers by omitting his stance on border security and illegal immigration on his campaign’s Spanish site. Both of Heller’s websites have some general information on his immigration stance, but according to his English site (and only his English site):

“Businesses who knowingly hire illegal immigrants should be held accountable. Dean also believes border patrol must also have the resources necessary to end the flow of illegal immigrants into the United States and opposes amnesty for those who enter America illegally.”

Heller is not the only Republican guilty of this kind of web editing. Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) is a staunch Republican who, like Heller, represents a state with a huge Spanish speaking population. On Senator Cornyn’s English site, “Immigration” is the fourth policy listed on the “Key Issues” page — higher than “Education” and even “Homeland Security.” On the other hand, users on his Spanish site must scroll down to near the bottom of the page to learn about his immigration views.

Representative Steve Pearce (R) from New Mexico? Look on his English site’s “issues” page and “Border Security” is the first policy explanation you’ll find. But if you switch over to his site in Spanish, “Seguridad Fronteriza” is dead last.

The GOP is also wary of communicating its immigration stance to Spanish speakers on the national scale. RNClatinos.com, a recent Republican web effort to generate Latino support — which oddly enough originally used a stock photo of the wrong ethnicity — offers no explanation of Republican immigration policy at all. To be fair, neither does the English RNC website. Still, it would seem odd that a website specifically geared towards incorporating the Latino electorate would have such a glaring omission.

Recent Republican immigration laws have been, by in large, extremely hostile to Latinos. It’s not surprising then that obfuscation and surreptitious outreach is the GOP’s only prayer at securing some Latino votes, especially in light of President Obama’s immigration announcement last week.

– Steven Perlberg

The American Future Fund (AFF), a shadowy right-wing attack ad group that does not identify its donors, was responsible for one of the most racially offensive ads of the 2010 cycle. But its latest online ad, “Thank You Senator McConnell,” may be one of the 2012 cycle’s most ridiculous.

The 80-second spot features images of the nation’s Founding Fathers, American troops on D-Day, anti-government protesters wielding “Don’t Tread On Me” flags, and a clip of Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s (R-KY) recent speech blasting calls for disclosure and limits to unfettered corporate political spending — all while text on the screen suggests American veterans fought for corporations’ right to buy and sell elections:

Heroes fought and died four our rights. Among them, the right to speak freely. It’s what makes us American. And our president swore to uphold it. But now, the First Amendment is under attack. By our own President.

Watch the spot:

Despite attempts by McConnell and his allies at AFF to make the issue about free speech, it is not. Prior to the Supreme Court’s election buying decision in Citizens United, no corporate CEO was prevented from saying anything he or she wished about political candidates and issues, as loudly and as often as he or she wished. This ruling was about whether CEOs and other corporate leaders could use unlimited pools of money from their corporate treasury to drown out the speech of everyone else.

Moreover, given that polling indicates more Americans believe in witchcraft than agree with Citizens United, it seems unlikely that the troops storming Normandy were doing so to protect the right of giant corporations to buy elections for sympathetic politicians.

In the new memoir An American Son, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) — the son of Cuban immigrants — reveals that he would be willing to cross the border into the United States illegally to provide a better life for him and his family:

“Many people who come here illegally are doing exactly what we would do if we lived in a country where we couldn’t feed our families,” Rubio writes in his book, which went on sale Tuesday. “If my kids went to sleep hungry every night and my country didn’t give me an opportunity to feed them, there isn’t a law, no matter how restrictive, that would prevent me from coming here.”

Rubio has been exploring the possibility of introducing a Republican-backed version of the DREAM Act, but announced on Monday that he is unlikely to pursue the effort in the wake of President Obama’s directive asking the Department of Homeland Security to defer deportations for some undocumented young people.

The senator has called Obama’s directive “welcome news,” but claimed that Obama is “dividing even Hispanics against other groups of Hispanics” with his order. It “sets back our efforts to arrive at a balanced and responsible approach to this issue. It poisons the well. It leads to mistrust,” Rubio claimed.

Nina Liss-Schultz contributed to this post.

Former Arizona state Senate President Russell Pearce, the sponsor of Arizona’s harsh immigration law SB 1070, was barred last week from hosting fundraising events in two Mexican restaurants. Pearce was recalled from office last November and the fundraising events were a part of his new bid for Senate.

The fundraising event was originally supposed to be held at Macayo’s Restaurant. But DeeDee Garcia Blase, a co-founder of a Latino organization called the Tequila Party, called Macayo’s and organized a protest of the event, convincing the restaurant to bar Pearce from using the space. Pearce then tried to moved his party to Oaxa Restuarante y Cantina, but was met with similar news:

Within hours, Oaxaca also cancelled Pearce’s event. Joseph Aguayo, the restaurant’s manager, told Arizona Capitol Times he did so after Garcia Blase contacted him and told him the event, which she said was registered under a different name, was actually to help Pearce raise money in his bid to return to the Senate after being recalled last year.

“We don’t need that,” Aguayo said. “We want to keep the support of our Latino community.”

Garcia Blase said that Pearce is trying to hold his fundraiser at Mexican restaurants for purely political reasons.

“They’re doing it to make a mockery of Latinos. It’s to make them appear Latino-friendly,” she said.

Finally, Pearce turned to a local high school but was refused access because he had asked “too late in the day.”

SB 1070, which is currently pending before the Supreme Court, requires that police officers with “reasonable suspicion” check the immigration status of an individual during traffic stops, empowers police to arrest individuals they believe are likely to be deportable, and makes “it a state crime to violate federal immigration registration and employment requirements.” Pearce’s recall, which made him the first legislative presiding officer to be recalled from office in American history, “centered on his authorship of the immigration law.”

Briana Rodriquez, a manager of Oaxaca Restaurante, explained the restaurant’s decision to bar Pearce, saying, “I don’t know why they’re trying to have it at a Mexican restaurant…But we serve the Latino community. Most of our staff is Latino. And we do not support SB 1070. It would be an insult to our ancestors to allow them to come here.”

-Nina Liss-Schultz