RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
How Lawmakers and Lobbyists Keep a Lock On the Private Prison Business Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=17520"><span class="small">Sadhbh Walshe, Guardian UK</span></a>   
Sunday, 30 September 2012 09:21

Intro: "Private prison corporations say they don't lobby on custodial policy. They seem to find legislators with views aligned anyway."

'America's three largest private prison companies...spent in the region of $45m over the past 10 years in lobbying state and federal governments.' (photo: Shutterstock)
'America's three largest private prison companies...spent in the region of $45m over the past 10 years in lobbying state and federal governments.' (photo: Shutterstock)



How Lawmakers and Lobbyists Keep a Lock On the Private Prison Business

By Sadhbh Walshe, Guardian UK

30 September 12

 

arly in August, the Associated Press reported that America's three largest private prison companies, the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), GEO Group, Inc and Management and Training Corp spent in the region of $45m over the past 10 years in lobbying state and federal governments. During the same period, these companies saw their profits soar as they scored more government contracts.

During the same period, various pieces of legislation got passed ensuring that immigrant detention, in particular, would remain a lucrative growth market. The companies get defensive, however, if anyone attempts to draw a connection between their lobbying efforts and their booming businesses. But whatever the purpose of the lobbying, the very fact that these companies, which perform a public service using taxpayer funds, are first and foremost profit-making entities highlights the flawed incentivisation of the private prison model and its growing presence in the American criminal justice system.

I'll get to the lobbying in a moment, but first let's have a look at that flawed incentive. Thanks to mandatory sentencing laws and the "war on drugs", the prison population has exploded over the past 30 years - to the point where it has become an untenable burden on state budgets. As a result, many state lawmakers have begun to look at ways to reduce their prison populations. This is good for society, as needlessly locking people up for excessive periods for nonviolent crimes has proven to be counter-productive and cost-prohibitive - not to mention inhumane.

This is terrible news for the private prison business, however, as they are reliant on state and federal governments to provide them with their customer base: that is, bodies to fill their cells.

The CCA highlighted its concerns over this potential downturn in demand for services in its Annual Report to shareholders in 2010:

"The demand for our facilities and services could be adversely affected by the relaxation of enforcement efforts, leniency in conviction or parole standards and sentencing practices or through the decriminalization of certain activities that are currently proscribed by our criminal laws. For instance, any changes with respect to drugs and controlled substances or illegal immigration could affect the number of persons arrested, convicted, and sentenced thereby potentially reducing demand for correctional facilities to house them."

As it turns out, the CCA is doing just fine. Its revenue in 2010 was a record $1.67bn, an increase of $46m from 2009. Half of that revenue came from contracts with states, and 43% of it came from federal contracts with the US Marshals, the Bureau of Prisons and ICE. Since 9/11, the number of immigrants held in detention has grown exponentially, and the number held in private prisons (not just the CCA's facilities) has increased during that period by 206%, according to a report (pdf) by the Sentencing Project.

The companies maintain that their lobbying efforts have nothing to do with this expansion and insist that it is their policy to "expressly prohibit their lobbyists from working to pass or oppose immigration legislation", such as the Arizona immigration bill SB1070, which provides for the mandatory detention of immigrants who cannot produce papers on request. In an email to me, the CCA's spokesperson, Steve Owen, stated his company's position as follows:

Since it is not to influence custodial policy, where are the private prison firms spending those millions of lobbying dollars? On a state level, it's difficult to ascertain exactly where the funds are directed, as each state has different disclosure requirements for lobbyists. But a report compiled by the Justice Policy Institute issued in 2011 and using data from the National Institute on Money in State Politics found that between 2003 and 2010, the CCA contributed a total of $1,552,350 to state election campaigns, with its efforts concentrated in California, Florida and Georgia. (Of these contributions, approximately half was to candidates, more than a third was to party committees and around one tenth was spent on ballot measures.) Contracts with the state of California account for 13% of the CCA's total revenue, and Georgia is home to the CCA-run Stewart Detention Center, the largest immigrant detention center in the country.

At a federal level, it is much easier to find out exactly where lobbying efforts have been directed. For instance, on the federal government's official lobbying disclosure website, it is possible to do a search to see exactly how much each private prison company has spent in any given year on lobbying efforts, and to find the specific issues they lobbied on. So, in this CCA lobbying report from 2008 (see pdf), it clearly states in box 16 that the "specific lobbying issues" were the "HR1889 (Private Prison Information Act); all provisions and HR1890 (Public Safety Act); all provisions."

The purpose of the latter bill, HR1890, was to "ensure that the incarceration of inmates is not provided by private contractors or vendors and that persons charged with or convicted of an offense against the US shall be housed in facilities managed and maintained by federal, state or local governments".

The bill died in committee. So the CCA lobbied and came out on the winning side against a bill that would have ended privatization of prison services. Whether that fits with the CCA's stated policy of not taking positions on "any legislation at any level of government involving detainment" may be moot, for I'm sure its shareholders would feel that those were lobbying dollars well spent.

The private prison companies insist that their lobbying and campaign donations are above board and legally compliant. They are corporations in the business of making profit, and so you cannot really blame them for doing whatever it takes to achieve that end.

It is their political enablers, the lawmakers who accept millions of dollars from these corporations, who ought to be doing some serious soul-searching. Of all the public services to be outsourced, incarceration, where the state deprives a person of their liberty and assumes responsibility for his or her mental and physical well-being, is not one to be auctioned for campaign contributions.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Mitt Romney's Real Agenda Print
Saturday, 29 September 2012 14:40

Dickinson writes: "If you want to understand Romney's game plan, just look at what Republicans have been doing in Congress."

Mitt Romney. (photo: Getty Images)
Mitt Romney. (photo: Getty Images)


Mitt Romney's Real Agenda

By Tim Dickinson, Rolling Stone

29 September 12

 

If you want to understand Romney's game plan, just look at what Republicans have been doing in Congress

t was tempting to dismiss Mitt Romney's hard-right turn during the GOP primaries as calculated pandering. In the general election - as one of his top advisers famously suggested - Romney would simply shake the old Etch A Sketch and recast himself as the centrist who governed Massachusetts. But with the selection of vice-presidential nominee Paul Ryan, the shape-shifting Romney has locked into focus - cementing himself as the frontman for the far-right partisans responsible for Washington's gridlock.

There is no longer any ambiguity about the path that Romney would pursue as president, because it's the same trajectory charted by Ryan, the architect of the House GOP's reactionary agenda since the party's takeover in 2010. "Picking Ryan as vice president outlines the future of the next four or eight years of a Romney administration," GOP power broker Grover Norquist exulted in August. "Ryan has outlined a plan that has support in the Republican House and Senate. You have a real sense of where Romney's going." In fact, Norquist told party activists back in February, the true direction of the GOP is being mapped out by congressional hardliners. All the Republicans need to realize their vision, he said, is a president "with enough working digits to handle a pen."

The GOP legislation awaiting Romney's signature isn't simply a return to the era of George W. Bush. From abortion rights and gun laws to tax giveaways and energy policy, it's far worse. Measures that have already sailed through the Republican House would roll back clean-air protections, gut both Medicare and Medicaid, lavish trillions in tax cuts on billionaires while raising taxes on the poor, and slash everything from college aid to veteran benefits. In fact, the tenets of Ryan Republicanism are so extreme that they even offend the pioneers of trickle-down economics. "Ryan takes out the ax and goes after programs for the poor - which is the last thing you ought to cut," says David Stockman, who served as Ronald Reagan's budget director. "It's ideology run amok."

And Romney has now adopted every letter of the Ryan agenda. Take it from Ed Gillespie, senior adviser to the campaign: "If the Ryan budget had come to his desk as president," Gillespie said of Romney, "he would have signed it, of course."

A look at the bills that Republicans have passed since they took control of the House in 2010 offers a clear blueprint of the agenda that a Romney administration would be primed to establish:

Fewer Jobs

Republicans in Congress have repeatedly put ideology before creating jobs. For more than a year, they've refused to put President Obama's jobs bill up for a vote, even though projections show it would create nearly 2 million jobs without adding a penny to the deficit. The reason? The $447 billion bill would be entirely paid for through a surtax on millionaires.

In addition, the Republicans' signature initiative last year - the debt-ceiling standoff - was a jobs-killer, applying the brakes to the economic recovery. From February through April 2011, the economy had been adding 200,000 jobs a month. But during the uncertainty created by the congressional impasse, job creation was cut in half for every month the standoffcontinued. And according to the Economic Policy Institute, the immediate spending cuts required by the debt-ceiling compromise are likely to shrink the economy by $43 billion this year, killing nearly 323,000 jobs.

What Ryan markets as his "Path to Prosperity" would make things even worse: The draconian cuts in his latest budget, according to the EPI, would put an additional drag on the economy, destroying another 4.1 million jobs by 2014.

God, Guns and Gays

The retrograde social agenda laid out in recent GOP legislation represents a full-scale assault on fundamental American rights. Last year, the House passed a bill that would broadly prohibit women from purchasing insurance plans that cover abortion. The so-called Protect Life Act would also allow hospitals to refuse a dying woman an abortion that would save her life. Ryan himself co-sponsored legislation that would have made it impossible for impoverished victims of rape and incest to receive abortions unless their assault met a narrow definition of "forcible rape." Under the bill's language, for instance, federal abortion coverage would be denied to a 12-year-old girl impregnated by a 40-year-old man, unless she could prove she fought back.

When they weren't trying to force women to birth babies for rapists, the GOP House was voting to make it easier for would-be criminals to carry concealed firearms. In the first major gun legislation passed after their colleague Gabrielle Giffords was shot in the head, the House sided with her attempted murderer, passing an NRA-backed measure that would have undercut state limits on concealed-carry permits. Under the legislation, authorities in a state that prohibits drunk people from carrying a hidden weapon, for instance, would be barred from arresting an armed inebriate if he had a permit from another state without such a restriction. The bill, said Dennis Henigan of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, would "make it easier for the Jared Loughners of the world to pack heat on our streets and in our communities."

The GOP's love of guns is rivaled only by its contempt for gay Americans - even those who take up arms in defense of their country. Unable to block the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," Republicans in the House approved riders in the Defense appropriations bill to undermine the rights of gays in the armed forces. An amendment introduced by Rep. Todd Akin - Ryan's co-sponsor on "forcible rape" - sought to prohibit military facilities from being used to hold gay weddings, and to bar military chaplains from presiding over such ceremonies. Another House rider banned the military from offering medical, pension and death benefits to the spouses of gay soldiers.

 

In thrall to dirty-energy interests, House Republicans have held more than 300 votes to hamstring the EPA, roll back environmental protections and open up sensitive public land to drilling - offering polluters a virtual license to kill. "This is, without doubt, the most anti-environmental Congress in history," said Rep. Henry Waxman, the ranking Democrat on the House Energy Committee.

Under the Republicans, the House has voted to ban the EPA from placing limits on climate-warming pollution, to reverse new fuel standards projected to slash dependence on foreign oil and save Americans $1.7 trillion at the pump, and to end standards signed into law by President Bush that would phase out wasteful, high-wattage incandescent light bulbs. Even more reckless, the House voted to block limits on deadly mercury emissions - a move that federal scientists calculate would result in 20,000 premature deaths - and drop safeguards on cement manufacturing that would kill another 12,500 Americans and lead to thousands of avoidable heart attacks.

The Federal Bailout That Saved Mitt Romney

In February, over the objections of the State Department, the House voted to approve the Keystone XL pipeline, which would transport toxic tar sands from Canada across the Midwest's largest and most vulnerable supply of drinking water. In that same vote, the House returned to the great dream of the Bush era, voting to permit the oil industry to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. In an even more sweeping move, the House passed a bill to block all new major regulations until the nation's unemployment rate falls to six percent - a measure that would choke off not only new environmental safeguards, but also the new limits on Wall Street recklessness required under Dodd-Frank.

Bash Immigrants

In June, the house approved a raft of amendments blocking Obama's executive directives on immigration reform. The legislation would prevent the administration from prioritizing the deportation of violent criminals over law-abiding immigrants, and put Homeland Security back in the business of deporting the undocumented spouses of American citizens. The House even found a way to merge its dirty-energy agenda with its anti-immigrant stance, passing a "border bill" that bars enforcement of 16 key environmental laws - including the Endangered Species Act - on federal land within 100 miles of the Mexican border. The bill is a sop to the Minuteman crowd, who don't want to contend with environmental rules as they erect electrified fences to keep out immigrants. But the measure is so broadly written that it also applies to the Canadian border, opening up places like Glacier National Park in Montana to bulldozers. Rep. Denny Rehberg, a Republican from Montana, calls the bill "absolutely necessary" to secure his state from "drug dealers, human traffickers and terrorists."

In perhaps its most absurd gesture, the House GOP managed to weave together its hatred of immigrants and abortions, passing a rider that bans the government from providing abortions to immigrants in detention. The move is a brave solution in search of an actual problem: Federal agencies have never paid for such a procedure.

Enrich Billionaires

House Republicans have voted three times to extend all of the Bush-era tax cuts - a move that would blow a $3.8 trillion hole in the budget over the next decade. In fact, the Ryan budget - twice approved by the House - goes even further, doling out another $2.5 trillion to the wealthiest Americans by reducing the tax rate on top earners from 35 to just 25 percent, lowering the corporate rate to 25 percent, and ending the alternative minimum tax, a safeguard against tax cheats.

Romney, in fact, wants to give away even more to the rich than Republicans in the House by permanently eliminating the estate tax - a proposal that alarmsr veterans of the first Bush administration. "Given the vast amounts of wealth that have accumulated at the very, very, very top, it's an odd time to be eliminating this most progressive element of the tax system," says Michael Graetz, a former deputy assistant Treasury secretary under Bush. Over a decade, Romney's gift to the nation's most fortunate families would allow their heirs to pocket at least $1 trillion (including up to $50 million for Mitt's own heirs).

How the GOP Became the Party of the Rich Those without family fortunes, meanwhile, would see their taxes soar. Independent tax groups have concluded that the only way to replace the tax revenue lost by the proposed Ryan and Romney tax cuts would be to end tax breaks - like the one for home-mortgage interest - that directly benefit the middle class. And the poor would get the shaft: The Ryan budget slashes the Child Tax Credit, meaning that a single mother of two earning the minimum wage would watch her annual tax bill rise by more than $1,500.

Slash Government2012-09-29

Under the Ryan blueprint approved by the House and voted for by 40 GOP senators, government spending on everything that's not Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security – NASA, highways, education, you name it – would be cut in half by 2022 and nearly in half again by 2050, until it stands at just 3.5 percent of the economy. As the Congressional Budget Service notes, such spending levels would be unprecedented in modern times: Since World War II, the government's discretionary spending has never fallen below eight percent of GDP.

If signed into law by President Romney, the Ryan budget would slash spending on college tuition grants by 42 percent next year and kick 1 million students out of the program. It would also gut funding for public schools, food and drug safety, basic science research, law enforcement and low-income housing. The cuts to food stamps alone would total $134 billion over the next decade. Ripping Ryan for trying to cloak his budget in Catholic doctrine, priests and faculty from Georgetown University wrote, "Your budget appears to reflect the values of your favorite philosopher, Ayn Rand, rather than the gospel of Jesus Christ." There is one place, however, where Republicans want to increase spending: Under the most recent Ryan budget, the Pentagon would receive an extra $29 billion a year, reversing Obama's modest efforts to slow the growth of defense spending. Where would the extra cash come from? In May, the House approved a Ryan bill to replace automatic cuts to the Pentagon under the debt-ceiling agreement with $261 billion in cuts to the federal safety net. The measure would deny food stamps to 1.8 million Americans, leave 280,000 kids without school lunches and cut off health care to 300,000 poor children.

Destroy Health Care

Republicans in the House have voted more than 30 times to repeal Obamacare – a move that would deplete the Medicare trust fund eight years early, kick 6.6 million young adults off their parents' health insurance, cost seniors $700 more on average for prescription drugs, and make it legal once again for insurance companies to charge women more than men and to rescind policies when people get sick. At the same time, repealing Obamacare would provide a massive giveback to the rich, handing over nearly $400 billion in tax revenues to those who earn above $250,000 a year.

To further boost the profits of insurance companies, the House passed a Ryan plan to voucherize Medicare, subjecting seniors to the whims of the private market. In the first year alone, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the cost to seniors would more than double, to $12,500 – and taxpayers would not save a dime, as private insurers pocketed the money. By 2050, as inflation took its toll, buying a policy as good as present-day Medicare would cost an 85-year-old more than $50,000. The Ryan plan would also eviscerate Medicaid by turning federal contributions to the program into lump-sum "block grants" that states can administer as they see fit. The trouble is that the grants, like Medicare vouchers, won't keep pace with soaring health care costs. In the first decade alone, the plan would bilk states out of $810 billion and deny health care to 30 million poor children, disabled Americans and seniors.

The last time a Republican presidential candidate touted an agenda to cut spending, lower taxes, boost defense and balance the budget was Ronald Reagan in 1980. Like Romney and Ryan, Reagan didn't have an actual plan for his spending cuts – they were an accounting fantasy, openly joked about as the "magic asterisk." In the end, as promised, Reagan's tax cuts went through, and the Pentagon's budget soared. But the spending cuts never materialized – so Reagan wound up tripling the debt.

If it didn't work for Reagan, says his former budget director, it would be foolish to assume Romney and Ryan can do better. "The Republican record on spending control is so abysmally bad," Stockman says, "that at this point they don't have a leg to stand on." Indeed, the last GOP administration turned $5 trillion in projected surplus into $5 trillion of new debt.

No one doubts Ryan's determination to slash the social safety net: Of the $5.3 trillion in cuts he has proposed, nearly two-thirds come from programs for the poor. But when it comes time to eviscerate the rest of the federal budget, Stockman says – funding for things like drug enforcement and public schools – Congress will "never cut those programs that deeply." In short, the rich will get their tax cuts. The poor will be left destitute. But America will be driven even deeper into debt.

That, at heart, is the twisted beauty of the plan being championed by Ryan and Romney: The higher Republicans manage to drive up the debt, the more ammunition they have in their fight to slash federal spending for the needy. And the more time they waste trumpeting their "fiscal discipline," the more the nation's infrastructure will continue to crumble around them. Squandering two full workweeks of the congressional calendar on votes to repeal Obamacare has cost taxpayers $48 million. That's nearly the same amount of money now needed to repair cracks in the Capitol itself – spending the House GOP has refused to authorize, out of anti-governmental spite. "If the House wants the dome to fall in," said Senate Appropriations chair Ben Nelson, "I hope it falls on their side." If the Republicans experience a crushing blow as a result of their hard-right agenda, of course, it won't be caused by the laws of physics – it will be delivered by the voters on Election Day.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Bill Moyers on the United States of ALEC Print
Friday, 28 September 2012 15:11

Excerpt: "ALEC brings together major U.S. corporations and right-wing legislators to craft and vote on 'model' bills behind closed doors."

Portrait, Bill Moyers. (photo: PBS)
Portrait, Bill Moyers. (photo: PBS)


Bill Moyers on the United States of ALEC

By Democracy Now!

28 September 12

 

 

MY GOODMAN: We begin our show today with a look at the secretive American Legislative Exchange Council. The organization, often known as just ALEC, brings together major corporations and state legislators to craft and vote on "model" bills behind closed doors. It's come under increasing scrutiny for its role in promoting "stand your ground" gun laws, voter suppression bills, union-busting policies and other controversial legislation. The organization's agenda has sparked so much controversy that 40 major U.S. companies, including Wal-Mart, Coca-Cola, Kraft and General Motors, have recently severed ties with ALEC.

ALEC is the focus of a new documentary by the legendary journalist Bill Moyers titled The United States of ALEC. It will air this weekend on Moyers & Company but is premiering today here on Democracy Now!

STATE REP. STEVE FARLEY: I've often told people that I talk to out on the campaign trail, when they say, "State what?" when I say I'm running for state legislature, I tell them that the decisions that are made here in the legislature are often more important for your everyday life than the decisions the president makes.

JOHN NICHOLS: If you really want to influence the politics of this country, you don't just give money to presidential campaigns, you don't just give money to congressional campaign committees. Smart players put their money in the states.

PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN: ALEC has forged a unique partnership between state legislators and leaders from the corporate and business community. This partnership offers businessmen the extraordinary opportunity to apply their talents to solve our nation's problems and build on our opportunities.

LISA GRAVES: I was stunned at the notion that politicians and corporate representatives, corporate lobbyists, were actually voting behind closed doors on these changes to the law before they were introduced in statehouses across the country.

HOUSE SPEAKER JOHN BOEHNER: ALEC has been, I think, a wonderful organization. Not only does it bring like-minded legislators together, but the private sector engagement and partnership in ALEC is really what I think makes it the organization that it is.

BILL MOYERS: You might have heard the name ALEC in the news lately.

CHRIS MATTHEWS: The American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC, for short.

REPORTER: The American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC.

BILL MOYERS: ALEC is a nationwide consortium of elected state legislators working side by side with some of America's most powerful corporations. They have an agenda you should know about: a mission to remake America, changing the country by changing its laws one state at a time. ALEC creates what it calls "model legislation," pro-corporate laws like this one that its members push in statehouses across the country. ALEC says close to a thousand bills, based at least in part on its models, are introduced every year, and an average of 200 pass. This has been going on for decades, but somehow ALEC managed to remain the most influential, corporate-funded political organization you had never heard of - until a gunshot sounded in the Florida night.

RACHEL MADDOW: Trayvon Martin, unarmed, but for a bag of candy and an iced tea that he was carrying.

BILL MOYERS: You'll recall that the shooter in Trayvon Martin's death was protected at first by Florida's so-called "stand your ground" law. That law was the work of the National Rifle Association. There is its lobbyist standing right beside Governor Jeb Bush when he signed it into law in 2005. Although ALEC didn't originate the Florida law, it seized on it for the "stand your ground" model it would circulate in other states. Twenty-four of them have passed a version of it.

RASHAD ROBINSON: How did this law not only get in place in Florida but around the country? And all the fingers kept pointing back to ALEC.

BILL MOYERS: When civil rights and grassroots groups learned about ALEC's connection to "stand your ground" laws, they were outraged.

RASHAD ROBINSON: ALEC doesn't do its work alone; they do it with some of the biggest corporate brands in America.

BILL MOYERS: Before long, corporations were pulling out of ALEC, including Coca-Cola, Kraft Foods, McDonald's, Mars, Procter & Gamble, Johnson & Johnson. Caught in the glare of the national spotlight, ALEC tried to change the subject.

KAITLYN BUSS: You know, I think that the entire debate needs to be reframed. And really what ALEC is is a bipartisan association of state legislators. We have, you know, legislators of all political stripes coming together to talk about the most critical issues facing the states and trying to come up with the best solutions to face some of the problems we're having.

MEGYN KELLY: Right. So, your point is it's not a partisan organization.

BILL MOYERS: But ALEC is partisan. And then some.

LISA GRAVES: In the spring, I got a call from a person who said that all of the ALEC bills were available, and was I interested in looking at them. And I said I was.

BILL MOYERS: Lisa Graves, a former Justice Department lawyer, runs the Center for Media Democracy. That's a nonprofit investigative reporting group in Madison, Wisconsin. In 2011, by way of an ALEC insider, Graves got her hands on a virtual library of internal ALEC documents. She was amazed by its contents: a treasure trove of actual ALEC model bills.

LISA GRAVES: These are the bills that were provided by the whistleblower. That's just the index.

BILL MOYERS: There were more than 850 of them, 850 boilerplate laws that ALEC legislators could introduce as their own in any state in the union.

LISA GRAVES: Bills to change the law to make it harder for Americans to vote, those were ALEC bills. Bills to dramatically change the rights of Americans who are killed or injured by corporations, those were ALEC bills. Bills to make it harder for unions to do their work were ALEC bills. Bills to basically block climate change agreements, those were ALEC bills. When I looked at them, I was really shocked. I didn't know how incredibly extensive and deep and far-reaching this effort to rework our laws was.

BILL MOYERS: She and her team begin to plow to ALEC's documents, as well as public sources, to compile a list of the organizations and people who were or have been ALEC members. They found hundreds of corporations, from Coca-Cola and Koch Industries to ExxonMobil, Pfizer and Wal-Mart; dozens of right-wing think tanks and foundations; two dozen corporate law firms and lobbying firms; and some thousand state legislators, a few of them Democrats, the majority of them Republican.

STATE REP. MARK POCAN: ALEC is a corporate dating service for lonely legislators and corporate special interests that eventually the relationship culminates with some special interest legislation, and, hopefully, that lives happily ever after as the ALEC model. Unfortunately, what's excluded from that equation is the public.

BILL MOYERS: In the Wisconsin Statehouse, Democratic Representative Mark Pocan is trying to expose ALEC's fingerprints whenever he can. By one count, over a third of Pocan's fellow Wisconsin lawmakers are ALEC members.

STATE REP. MARK POCAN: When you look around, especially on the Republican side of the aisle, a lot of members of ALEC. Front row, ALEC. When you start going down to, you know, the chair of finance and some of the other members, are all ALEC members - in fact, ALEC co-chair for the state - row by row, you can point out people who have been members of ALEC over the years.

There's two main categories they have. One is how to reduce the size of government. And the other half of it is this model legislation that's in the corporate good - in other words, this profit-driven legislation: how can you open up a new market, how can you privatize something that can open up a market for a company? And between those two divisions, you're kind of getting to the same end goal, which is really kind of ultimate privatization of everything.

BILL MOYERS: Mark Pocan is something of an expert on ALEC. In fact, to learn as much as he could, he became a member.

STATE REP. MARK POCAN: What I had realized is if you join ALEC for a mere $100 as a legislator, you have the full access, like any corporate member.

BILL MOYERS: He also took himself to an ALEC conference for a firsthand look.

STATE REP. MARK POCAN: Hi. I'm State Representative Mark Pocan, and welcome to my video blog. I'm outside the Marriott on Canal Street in New Orleans at the ALEC convention, the American Legislative Exchange Council.

That was where you watched the interaction of a room full of lobbyists. You know, free drinks, free cigars, wining, dining. Many people just came from a dinner that was sponsored by some special interest, coming to a party that's sponsored by a special interest, so they can continue to talk about special interests.

LISA GRAVES: This is from the New Orleans convention. This includes a number of seminars that they held for legislators, including one called "Warming Up to Climate Change: The Many Benefits of Increased Atmospheric CO2."

BILL MOYERS: That 2011 ALEC conference, lo and behold, was sponsored by BP, ExxonMobil, Chevron and Shell, among others. Another of its events featured guns.

LISA GRAVES: This is the NRA-sponsored shooting event, for legislators and for lobbyists. Free.

BILL MOYERS: There was even one offering free cigars.

LISA GRAVES: Sponsored by Reynolds American, which is one of the biggest tobacco companies in the world, and the Cigar Association of America.

BILL MOYERS: It sounds like lobbying. It looks like lobbying. It smells like lobbying. But ALEC says it's not lobbying. In fact, ALEC operates not as a lobby group but as a nonprofit, a charity. In its filing with the IRS, ALEC says its mission is education, which means it pays no taxes and its corporate members get a tax write-off. Its legislators get a lot, too.

STATE REP. MARK POCAN: In Wisconsin, I can't take anything of value from a lobbyist. I can't take a cup of coffee from a lobbyist. At ALEC, it's just the opposite. You know, you get there, and you're being wined and dined by corporate interests. I can go down there and be wined and dined for days in order to hear about their special legislation. I mean, the head of Shell Oil flew in on his private jet to come to this conference. The head of one of the largest utility companies in the country was there on a panel, a utility company in 13 states. And here he is presenting to legislators. I mean, they clearly brought in some of the biggest corporate names in special interestdom and had them meeting with legislators, because a lot of business transpires at these events.

AMY GOODMAN: The United States of ALEC. We will return to Bill Moyers' special report in a moment.

AMY GOODMAN: We turn to part two of The United States of ALEC, a special report by Bill Moyers. It's airing this weekend on Moyers & Company but is premiering today here on Democracy Now!

BILL MOYERS: The most important business happens in what ALEC calls "task forces." There are currently eight of them, with a corporate take on every important issue in American life, from health and safety to the environment, to taxation. In ALEC task forces, elected state officials and corporate representatives close the doors to press and public and together approve the bills that will be sent out to America. But Americans have no idea they come from ALEC, unless someone like a Mark Pocan exposes it.

STATE REP. MARK POCAN: When I went down to New Orleans to the ALEC convention last August, I remember going to a workshop and hearing a little bit about a bill they did in Florida and some other states, and there was a proposal to provide special needs scholarships. And lo and behold, all of a sudden I come back to Wisconsin, and what gets introduced? Get ready; I know you're going to have a shocked look on your face. A bill to do just that.

BILL MOYERS: Twenty-six ALEC members in the Wisconsin legislature sponsored that special needs bill, but the real sponsor was ALEC. Pocan knew, because the bill bore a striking resemblance to ALEC's model. Have a look.

But Pocan isn't only concerned that ALEC sneaks bills into the state legislature. The intent behind the bills troubles him, too.

STATE REP. MARK POCAN: Some of their legislation sounds so innocuous, but when you start to read about why they're doing it, you know there's a far different reason why something's coming forward, and that's important. If the average person knew that a bill like this came from some group like ALEC, you'll look at the bill very differently, and you might look at that legislator a little differently about why they introduced it.

This is not about education. This is not about helping kids with special needs. This is about privatization. This is about corporate profits. And this is about dismantling public education.

BILL MOYERS: The bill passed in the Wisconsin House but failed to make it through the Senate. However, in its education report card, ALEC boasts that similar bills have passed in Oklahoma, Louisiana, North Carolina and Ohio. ALEC's education agenda includes online schooling, as well. Take a careful look, and you'll find the profit motive there, too.

LISA GRAVES: What you see is corporations that have a direct benefit, whose bottom line directly benefits from these bills, voting on these bills in the ALEC task force. And so, corporations like Connections Academy, corporations like K12, they have a direct financial interest in advancing this agenda.

BILL MOYERS: Those corporations, Connections Academy and K12, which specialize in online education, can profit handsomely from laws that direct taxpayer money toward businesses like theirs. In 2011, both sat on ALEC's Education Task Force. But the two companies didn't just approve the model bill, they helped craft it. The proof is in one of ALEC's own documents. And there's more to the story.

STATE SEN. DOLORES GRESHAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. House Bill 1030 has to do with the establishment of virtual public schools.

BILL MOYERS: Last year, an online schooling bill based on the ALEC model turned up in another state where ALEC has a powerful influence: Tennessee. It was introduced in both the state Senate and House by ALEC members. The bill passed, making private corporations eligible for public money for online education. Then, within weeks, the K12 corporation got what amounted to a no-bid contract to provide online education to any Tennessee student from kindergarten through the eighth grade.

So, let's review. The ALEC member corporations helped craft the bill. ALEC legislators introduced it and vote on it. And now there's a state law on the books that enables one of those corporations to get state money. Game, set, match. But remember, this story isn't about one company and the education industry and one law in Tennessee; it's about hundreds of corporations in most every industry influencing lawmakers in state after state, using ALEC as a front.

Here's another example. The American Bail Coalition, which represents the bail bond industry, pulls no punches about writing ALEC's model bills itself. In a newsletter a few years back, the coalition boasted that it had written 12 ALEC model bills fortifying the commercial bail industry. Here's Jerry Watson, senior legal counsel for the coalition, speaking at an ALEC meeting in 2007. He has a law to offer.

JERRY WATSON: There is a model bill for you to review, if you might be interested in introducing such a measure.

BILL MOYERS: He'll even help legislators amend it.

JERRY WATSON: Now, if you don't like the precise language of these suggested documents, can they be tweaked by your legislative council? Well, absolutely. And will we work with them on that and work with you and your staff on that? Absolutely.

BILL MOYERS: All the lawmakers have to do is ring him up.

JERRY WATSON: There is a phone number there for our executive offices in Washington, D.C. We're prepared to help you and your staff and support this legislation in any way that we can.

BILL MOYERS: And guess what? There's gold at the end of the rainbow.

JERRY WATSON: But I'm not so crazy as not to know that you've already figured out that if I can talk you into doing this bill, my clients are going to make a - some money on the bond premiums.

BILL MOYERS: And corporate interest conflated with the public interest.

JERRY WATSON: But if we can help you save crime victims in your legislative district and generate positive revenue for your state and help solve your prison overcrowding problem, you don't mind me making a dollar.

BILL MOYERS: ALEC members are seldom as upfront as the American Bail Coalition. In fact, ordinarily, ALEC's hand is very hard to see at all. But if you know where to look, you'll often find ALEC hiding in plain sight.

LISA GRAVES: ALEC has, in addition to its regular vacation resort trips, it also has special, what it calls "boot camps" on particular substantive issues.

BILL MOYERS: In March 2011, ALEC held one of those boot camps for legislators at the North Carolina Capitol in Raleigh. The subject was so-called tort reform, how to keep the average Joe from successfully suing a corporation for damages. The day after the boot camp, two state representatives presented the draft version of a House bill chock-full of ALEC priorities. It would, among other things, limit corporate product liability in North Carolina. One of the representatives, Johnathan Rhyne, was quoted in the Raleigh News [&] Observer saying of ALEC, "I really don't know much about them." That's odd, because Rhyne had been listed as a featured speaker at the ALEC tort reform boot camp. The paper also reported that Rhyne said the bill wasn't copied from ALEC model legislation. That, too, is odd, given how the sections covering product liability could have passed as twins.

The bill was controversial. It passed, but only after the product liability sections were taken out of it. But the tort reformers didn't give up. They were back a year later, this time with a draft bill aimed specifically to limit the liability of drug manufacturers. When the public was allowed to comment before a legislative panel, people who had lost loved ones came to testify against the bill. A son who had lost a father.

SURVIVING SON: You know, my dad's gone. All I can do is sit here and be a voice for him. He can't speak anymore.

BILL MOYERS: A grandfather mourning his granddaughter.

SURVIVING GRANDFATHER: If this bill passes, an innocent victim in North Carolina like Brittany could not hold a manufacturer accountable. Everyone needs to be accountable for their actions.

BILL MOYERS: Unmentioned to those in the room, ALEC was present, too, in the form of a lobbyist with drug manufacturing giant GlaxoSmithKline. His name is John Del Giorno.

JOHN DEL GIORNO: Several of the opposing testifiers today brought up very compelling, sad, empathetic stories.

BILL MOYERS: Not only is Glaxo an ALEC corporate member, Del Giorno himself is also a vice chairman of ALEC's national private enterprise board. The North Carolina bill has been tabled for now.

So now you've seen how it works for corporations. How about for the politicians?

ANDERSON COOPER: Last night was, as the president finally acknowledged today, a shellacking. Republicans gained control of the House, picking up 60 seats so far.

BILL MOYERS: When all of the returns were counted on election night 2010, ALEC was a big winner. Eight of the Republican governors elected or re-elected that night had ties to the group.

GOV.-ELECT JOHN KASICH: Guess what? I'm going to be governor of Ohio!

GOV.-ELECT NIKKI HALEY: There's going to be a lot of news and a lot of observers that say that we made history.

GOV. JAN BREWER: A clean sweep for Republicans!

BILL MOYERS: And a star was born that election night: Wisconsin's new governor, a son of ALEC named Scott Walker.

GOV.-ELECT SCOTT WALKER: Wisconsin is open for business!

JOHN NICHOLS: I've known Scott Walker, the governor of Wisconsin, for the better part of 20 years. And Scott is a classic career politician. And I don't say that in a negative way.

BILL MOYERS: Journalist and Wisconsinite John Nichols has tracked Scott Walker's career since the '90s, when Walker was a state legislator and then-ALEC member.

JOHN NICHOLS: And in 2010, he ran, not presenting himself as an ALEC alumni or as a ally of big corporations or big business people outside the state; he ran a very down-home campaign.

SCOTT WALKER: This is my lunch. I pack a brown bag each day so I can save some money to spend on, you know, the more important things in life, like sending my kids to college.

BILL MOYERS: Nichols says that despite the folksy image, in the years leading up to Walker's 2010 campaign, he had become a master political fundraiser.

JOHN NICHOLS: And he began to really forge incredibly close ties with a lot of corporate interests that he had first been introduced to in ALEC, individuals and groups like the Koch brothers.

BILL MOYERS: David and Charles Koch, the billionaire businessmen behind the vast industrial empire, are also political activists with an agenda. Their companies and foundations have been ALEC members and funders for years.

JOHN NICHOLS: The Koch brothers were among the two or three largest contributors to Scott Walker's campaign for governor of Wisconsin. And the Koch brothers get that if you really want to influence the politics of this country, you don't just give money to presidential campaigns, you don't just give money to congressional campaign committees. The smart ones, the smart players, put their money in the states.

SCOTT WALKER: Hi. I'm Scott Walker.

JOHN NICHOLS: It's state government that funds education, social services. And it taxes.

SCOTT WALKER: If you want lower taxes and less government, I'm Scott Walker, and I know how to get the job done.

JOHN NICHOLS: And so, the smart donors can change the whole country without ever going to Washington, without ever having to go through a congressional hearing, without ever having to lobby on Capitol Hill, without ever having to talk to the president.

JUSTICE SHIRLEY ABRAHAMSON: Please raise your right hand and repeat after me.

BILL MOYERS: The new governor moved quickly with a raft of ALEC-inspired bills. They included one similar to Florida's "stand your ground." Another made it easier to carry concealed weapons. There was a resolution opposing the mandated purchase of health insurance. And, of course, there was one limiting corporate liability. The Wisconsin legislature passed a so-called tort reform measure that included parts of eight different ALEC models. ALEC was elated, praising Walker and the legislature in a press release for their, quote, "immediate attention to reforming the state's legal system." But Scott Walker was also shooting for another big ALEC prize.

GOV. SCOTT WALKER: Now, some have questioned why we have to reform collective bargaining.

BILL MOYERS: Taking away workers' collective bargaining rights, that had long been an ALEC goal. A candid video caught Scott Walker talking about it with one of his financial backers, the billionaire businesswoman Diane Hendricks.

GOV. SCOTT WALKER: Well, we're going to start in a couple weeks with our budget adjustment bill. The first step is, we're going to deal with collective bargaining for all public employee unions.

DIANE HENDRICKS: Right.

GOV. SCOTT WALKER: Because you just divide and conquer.

BILL MOYERS: Despite an extraordinary public outcry and after a brief but intense political struggle, Walker's anti-collective-bargaining measures became state law.

JOHN NICHOLS: It was ALEC's ideas, ALEC's values, that permeated the bill and undid almost 50 years - more than 50 years of collective bargaining law in Wisconsin.

BILL MOYERS: But again, remember, this isn't just about one state. It's about every state. Take Arizona. It's practically an ALEC subsidiary. One report this year found that 49 of the state's 90 legislators are members. And two-thirds of the Republican leadership are on ALEC task forces. And, of course, the governor, Jan Brewer, was an ALEC member, too. So, not surprising, Arizona is among the states passing ALEC-inspired laws to privatize education at taxpayer expense. And no surprise again, Arizona is also getting ALEC-like laws to limit corporate liability.

REPORTER: Police will also be able to ask anyone to prove their legal status.

BILL MOYERS: And Arizona, you'll recall, made news in 2010 with a law allowing police to stop someone for looking Hispanic and detaining them if they weren't carrying proper papers. So, it probably won't shock you to learn that Arizona's immigration law also inspired an ALEC model, a version of which was passed in five other states.

STATE REP. STEVE FARLEY: All of us here are very familiar with ALEC and the influence that ALEC has with many of the members here.

BILL MOYERS: ALEC's nomination of Arizona proved too much for State Representative Steve Farley.

STATE REP. STEVE FARLEY: I just want to emphasize, it's fine for corporations to be involved in the process. Corporations have the right to present their arguments. But they don't have the right to do it secretly. They don't have the right to lobby people and not register as lobbyists. They don't have the right to take people away on trips, convince them of it, and send them back here, and then nobody has seen what's really gone on and how that legislator has gotten that idea and where is it coming from.

BILL MOYERS: Farley has introduced a bill to force legislators to disclose their ALEC ties, just as the law already requires them to do with any lobbyist.

STATE REP. STEVE FARLEY: All I'm asking in the ALEC Accountability Act is to make sure that all of those expenses are reported as if they are lobbying expenses, and all those gifts that legislators received are reported as if they are receiving the gifts from lobbyists, so the public can find out and make up their own minds about who is influencing what.

BILL MOYERS: Steve Farley's bill has gone nowhere. ALEC, on the other hand, is still everywhere, still hiding in plain sight. Watch for it coming soon to a statehouse near you.

AMY GOODMAN: The United States of ALEC, a special report by Bill Moyers. It will air this weekend on Moyers & Company. This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. Back in a minute.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
The Price of US Interventionism Print
Friday, 28 September 2012 15:10

Eland writes: "Mitt Romney and his neocon advisers want to confront the Muslim world with a 'credible military threat' as if more American 'tough-guy-ism' will quell the region's anti-Americanism."

Marine Sgt. Joseph Bergeron was part of a training task force among its duties, the task force trained Ugandan forces in the hunt for Joseph Kony and the Lord's resistance army, which is behind a spike in violence in central Africa. (photo: Jad Sleiman/DVIDS)
Marine Sgt. Joseph Bergeron was part of a training task force among its duties, the task force trained Ugandan forces in the hunt for Joseph Kony and the Lord's resistance army, which is behind a spike in violence in central Africa. (photo: Jad Sleiman/DVIDS)


The Price of US Interventionism

By Ivan Eland, Consortium News

28 September 12

 

he attack on the U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, which killed four U.S. diplomats, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens, is the latest example of tragic blowback from the U.S. government’s interventionist foreign policy in the Islamic world. That it happened on the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, an even more severe example of such blowback, is a cruel irony.

After 9/11, President George W. Bush told us that Islamist terrorists attack us for “our freedoms.” This contradicted the conclusion of his own Defense Science Board and other expert opinion - including that of the perpetrator of those attacks, Osama bin Laden - that al-Qaeda attacked us for our foreign policy of intervening indiscriminately in Muslim lands.

The enduring lack of introspection on the part of the American government and people about the ill effects of those needless interventions leads to their continuation and consequent unpleasant blowback. Unfortunately, the killing of American personnel in Libya and the attacks on and violent protests at U.S. diplomatic facilities in 20 Islamic countries are examples of this payback.

At the time, critics of the overthrow of Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi rightfully asked during the process exactly who made up the opposition the U.S. was supporting and what kind of government would replace him. They held out the possibility of post-Gaddafi instability, tribal warfare, and maybe even an Islamist takeover of the country.

The attack on the U.S. diplomatic facilities in Libya is an example of that instability even in an Islamic country with relatively favorable feelings toward America. The new Libyan government was too weak to protect U.S. diplomats and actually blamed the United States for not evacuating its personnel sooner.

Obviously, some Libyan factions aren’t very grateful for the help of Western air power in Gaddafi’s overthrow and continuing Western aid.

However, some would say that it was the Internet film insulting Islam that caused worldwide anti-American violence, not U.S. intervention. Yet the film was only the trigger, and the real underlying issue is U.S. and Western meddling in Islamic lands and culture.

The U.S. superpower has been pursuing an interventionist policy in the Islamic world since World War II - ramping it up even further after 9/11 with the unnecessary invasion of Iraq - and is roundly hated for it, thus making it the target for such blowback attacks, even among peoples the U.S. tried to “help.”

In addition, the Western overthrow of Gaddafi - a long-time nemesis of the United States and West who had recently given up his nuclear program and had begun cooperating with the West, including holding Islamist detainees in his prisons for a U.S. government that had rendered them there - sent the wrong message to other countries thinking about getting or working on nuclear weapons.

The United States showed no respect for non-nuclear Libya or Saddam Hussein’s Iraq but certainly has for nuclear North Korea.

Yet after the seemingly easy overthrow of Gaddafi - using only Western air power supporting an indigenous opposition force, with no need for boots on the ground - pressure is now building for a repeat in Syria. But the blowback attacks in Libya, Egypt, and other Islamic countries should be a cautionary note about what could come after the overthrow of Bashar al-Assad.

Like the heavily armed and rival tribal militias now roaming Libya, Syria has many heavily armed opposition factions, which continue to commit atrocities against civilians and, according to U.S. intelligence, have been infiltrated, and are sometimes commanded, by al-Qaeda.

To illustrate, a doctor recently back from a humanitarian mission in Syria was shocked at the number of radical Islamist fighters in the opposition forces battling the Assad regime. Post-Gaddafi Islamist radicalism should have been no surprise in Libya, because al-Qaeda had always had a high participation rate from Benghazi and eastern Libya, the cradle of the anti-Gaddafi revolution.

After the doctor’s report in Syria, such an Islamist upsurge should be no surprise to the U.S. government in any post-Assad Syria either. Furthermore, overt U.S. military intervention in Syria will do nothing for America’s already very low popularity in the Islamic world.

The attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Libya, Egypt, and worldwide should be a “canary in the coal mine” warning to stop U.S. meddling in the Islamic world. The U.S. has recently conducted military interventions in at least six Muslim nations: Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen.

Even bigger birds flew in on 9/11 without causing any such introspection, however, so the prospect is bleak 11 years later for any badly needed U.S. soul-searching. Thus, unfortunately, at home and abroad, America will continue to needlessly have a big bull’s eye on its back.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Brown v Warren Gets Down-and-Dirty As Massachusetts Senate Race Tightens Print
Friday, 28 September 2012 15:00

Gurley writes: "With Harvard Law Professor Elizabeth Warren gaining ground in the Massachusetts Senate race, US Senator Scott Brown's campaign decided there was nowhere to go but negative."

Massachusetts Democratic Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren speaks in Springfield, Mass in June. Warren and Republican Senator Scott Brown have each raised several million dollars in the second quarter of 2012. (photo: Michael Dwyer/AP/File)
Massachusetts Democratic Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren speaks in Springfield, Mass in June. Warren and Republican Senator Scott Brown have each raised several million dollars in the second quarter of 2012. (photo: Michael Dwyer/AP/File)


Brown v Warren Gets Down-and-Dirty As Massachusetts Senate Race Tightens

By Gabrielle Gurley, Guardian UK

28 September 12

 

Moderate Republican Scott Brown risks his 'nice guy in a pickup truck' image by going negative on challenger Elizabeth Warren

ith Harvard Law Professor Elizabeth Warren gaining ground in the Massachusetts Senate race, US Senator Scott Brown's campaign decided there was nowhere to go but negative. Brown has blasted Warren for months, charging that she claimed Native American heritage to take advantage of university affirmative action employment policies. In the first debate between the two, Brown went so far as to say that Warren did not look Indian.

But his campaign finally overreached. At a recent Boston campaign event, a group of Brown supporters, including some members of his Senate staff, taunted Warren's backers with tomahawk chops and pseudo war chants. Suffice to say that such displays don't go down well with Native Americans.

Brown's first apology wasn't enough for the Cherokee Nation. "A campaign that would allow and condone such offensive and racist behavior must be called to task for their actions," Principal Chief Bill John Baker said in a statement. Brown was finally forced to come up with a stronger mea culpa and a zero tolerance policy on any future stunts.

The no-more-Mr-Nice-Guy strategy is fraught with perils for Brown. He won his Senate seat, in part, thanks to his carefully crafted persona as a genial, regular Joe in an old barn coat who cruises around the state in a pickup truck. Even long-time Boston Mayor Thomas Menino, a Democratic warhorse if there ever was one, counts Brown as a friend and waited as long as politically possible before endorsing Warren.

The feisty Warren is easygoing and personable on the campaign trail. But she's opted against being either warm and fuzzy or too in-your-face where it counts for most voters: on television. Her response to the heritage controversy has been muddled and only recently has she come out with a more robust response.

Dial up the wayback machine and the personable Brown might well have been making short work of Warren, as he did with state Attorney General Martha Coakley in the 2010 special election to fill the late Senator Ted Kennedy's seat. But in this Senate race, personal appeal is bumping up hard against the realities of party politics in a presidential election year. According to Alan Wolfe, a Boston College political science professor:

"If we lived in a world in which we vote for the candidate [as an individual], you couldn't lose as a middle class person by voting for either, but we don't live in that world. Party … matters right now more than the person, and the parties right now have very different approaches to the middle class."

The two candidates break even on the crucial issue of middle class "cred". Warren often describes herself as growing up on the "ragged edge of the middle class". She worked as a waitress as a young teenager, after her father had had a heart attack. Her self-description could just as easily also apply to Brown, whose working mother briefly relied on welfare.

So, Brown's strategy is to keep Warren off her game, which runs on her deep knowledge of the economy, consumer affairs, and Wall Street, lest she get more traction in turning the race into a referendum on the national Republican party and Brown's Senate record.

Four of five recent state-wide polls showed Warren edging out in front of Brown in what remains a very close race. Warren picked up her Democratic national convention bounce and ran with it. She hits all the right notes for her Democratic base on Massachusetts middle-class worries like unaffordable mortgages, student loan and credit card debt and bad guys like "Big Oil" and "millionaires and billionaires". For his part, Brown passed up a Republican national convention speaking slot – a move that deliberately distanced him from Mitt Romney, the state's former governor and his political mentor.

In the Senate, Brown has little room to maneuver on controversial issues like tax policy that are central to Republican orthodoxy. Few Massachusetts likely voters believe that he would raise tax rates on the wealthy Americans. Indeed, he's opposed the "Buffett rule" and lifting Bush era tax cuts on higher-income earners while preserving them for workers making less than $250,000.

Bay State voters are cool toward their former governor – President Obama is expected to trounce Romney easily here – and cooler still toward the conservative Republicans who dominate the national party. Yet, a strong Democratic turnout doesn't guarantee victory for Warren in a state where independents comprise more than 50% of the electorate and historically have few qualms about voting for moderate Republicans like Brown.

Which is why the tomahawk/chant episode could be a pivotal moment. It recalls a ghost of campaigns past: the 2006 Massachusetts gubernatorial race. Kerry Healey, the Republican candidate and Romney's lieutenant governor, deployed an ad loaded with powerful racial overtones against the Deval Patrick, the African-American political newcomer. The tactic backfired badly: Healey never recovered and lost to Patrick in a rout. He is now in his midway through his second term; she advises the Romney campaign.

Much is riding on the mood of the Massachusetts electorate. Do voters believe that Brown is still an affable guy who understands their issues better and can make himself heard in a politically polarized capital? Or is the Harvard law school maverick and consumer protection champion the best person to send to Washington?

Clearly, Brown has opted to keep voters focused on his view of Warren's personal shortcomings. That could be a costly gamble for a nice guy.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 3241 3242 3243 3244 3245 3246 3247 3248 3249 3250 Next > End >>

Page 3250 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN