The Article: The “People” Behind The Super PAC Explosion by Gavin Aronsen and Dave Gilson on Mother Jones.
The Text: Since last January, super-PACs have raised nearly $93 million in preparation for the 2012 election. Of that, more than 35 percent was donated by corporations, unions, and nonprofits—or, as we’ve come to know them in the post-Citizens United era, people. Though non-people people have not dominated super-PAC giving (for now), their strong showing in the recent round of financial disclosures lends credence to campaign finance reformers’ concerns that super-PACs enable cash-flush organizations to buy outsized influence over elections and candidates. The average corporate or union super-PAC donation was more than $62,000; in contrast, the average individual donation was around $23,500.
Of the $22.4 million collectively raised by the biggest 20 corporate and union super-PAC donors, 37 percent was from labor groups, which contributed to both liberal super-PACs and their own super-PACs. The rest was largely corporate donations to conservative super-PACs and groups supporting (but officially unconnected to) Republican presidential candidates. See the next page for a list of the biggest human donors to super-PACs—some of whose companies also appear on the list below.
Top 20 “People”* Giving to PACs
Continue Reading This Article…
The Article: Mitt’s Solyndra? He handed out renewable energy subsidies, too by Darren Samuelsohn on Politico.
The Text: Republicans are pounding Barack Obama on Solyndra, but it may be a complicated argument for their front-runner to maintain: While Mitt Romney was governor, Massachusetts also picked some winners and losers with energy subsidies.
And like Obama, some of the companies Romney’s state invested in came out on the losing end.
The scale is dramatically different: While the Obama administration dumped $535 million alone into Solyndra — the California solar panel company that subsequently filed for bankruptcy protection — the energy loans, grants and other financial help Romney distributed during four years as governor add up to just a fraction of that amount.
But Democrats — and even some Republicans — say the core issue is the same: If the federal government shouldn’t be betting on one company rather than the other, then neither should the state of Massachusetts.
Continue Reading This Article…
The Article: Damage Control: Why the Backlash Against the Komen Foundation Succeeded by Nona Willis Aronowitz in Good News.
The Text: On Tuesday, the anti-breast cancer charity Susan G. Komen For The Cure announced it was pulling funds that it had previously provided Planned Parenthood for breast exams. And today, after a hailstorm of protest on Twitter, Facebook, and Susan G. Komen’s message boards, the charity announced that it would be restoring Planned Parenthood’s grants.
Folks across the Internet are attributing this victory to, well, the Internet. Yay, social media! But it’s worth asking why this particular attack on women’s health prompted such a deafening outcry. After all, just one year ago the House of Representatives voted to defund Planned Parenthood outright. Conservative legislators rail against the HPV vaccine, which also prevents women from getting life-threatening cancer. Neither case prompted a fraction of the ire. What exactly got us so riled up this time?
It’s partly about the politics of breast cancer itself, or lack thereof. Breast cancer is one of the few nonpartisan women’s health issues. For those of us irritated by Komen’s pinkwashing or the foundation’s petty lawsuits against smaller charities, this may have also been an opportunity to vent our disgust. Mainly, though, the difference lies in the money: We expect to have a say in where our donations go.
Continue Reading This Article…
The Article: Democratic Operative’s Cat Slaughtered, ‘Liberal’ Painted On Corpse by Amanda Terkel in the Huffington Post.
The Text: The race for the Arkansas’ third congressional district took a gruesome turn on Sunday, when the campaign manager for Democratic challenger Ken Aden came home and found his cat slaughtered with the word “liberal” painted on the corpse.
According to a press release sent out by the Aden campaign, “The family pet, an adult, mixed-breed Siamese cat, had one side of its head bashed in to the point the cat’s eyeball was barely hanging from its socket. The perpetrators scrawled ‘liberal’ across the cat’s body and left it on the doorstep of [Jacob] Burris’ house.”
Burris, Aden’s campaign manager, told The Huffington Post that it was his 5-year-old son who first saw the atrocity. He had taken his children out to fill the family car with gas before going to church, and the young boy was the first one out of the vehicle when they returned.
Continue Reading This Article…
The Article: Egypt’s Sexual Counterrevolution by Khaled Diab in Salon.
The Text: Half a world away from the Republican presidential primaries where candidates vie to outlaw birth control and promote abstinence, ban pornography and condemn the “sin” of homosexuality, Egypt’s first post-revolution parliamentary election was, thanks to the Islamists, dominated by similar issues.
As the first anniversary of the revolution approaches this week, Egypt is facing a spate of urgent political, social and economic issues, such as mass youth unemployment, a tanking economy and a cabal of die-hard generals who just refuse to call it quits. But you wouldn’t know it from listening to the discourse of Islamists, particularly the hard-line Salafist Nour party, which has focused attention on issues of “morality,” including talk of banning booze, prohibiting or restricting bikinis and censoring “sex scenes” in Egypt’s vibrant film industry.
Although women from all walks of life have been at the forefront of the popular uprising and are treated as relative equals by the revolutionary youth movement that has orchestrated the revolution, the burden of this moralizing, as is often the case, has fallen on the shoulders of women. This has led Egypt’s secular, liberal women and feminists to look to the immediate future with a mixture of apprehension and worry.
Continue Reading This Article…
The Article: Capital Gains Tax Rates Benefiting Wealthy Are Protected By Both Parties by Steven Mufson and Jia Lynn Yang in The Washington Post.
The Text: The K Street office of Mark Bloomfield, president of the American Council for Capital Formation, is full of knickknacks collected in three decades of lobbying for cutting the capital gains tax.
The coffee table has campaign buttons that read “Capital Gains = Better Jobs.” One wall displays a blown-up cartoon retracing the steps that led President Jimmy Carter to reluctantly sign a cut in the capital gains tax rate. On a shelf sits a framed, handwritten note from President George W. Bush in December 2003 that says: “Dear Mark, I got your treatise on taxes — many thanks. I will look it over with keen interest. Merry Christmas.”
For the very richest Americans, low tax rates on capital gains are better than any Christmas gift. As a result of a pair of rate cuts, first under President Bill Clinton and then under Bush, most of the richest Americans pay lower overall tax rates than middle-class Americans do. And this is one reason the gap between the wealthy and the rest of the country is widening dramatically.
The rates on capital gains — which include profits from the sale of stocks, bonds and real estate — should be a key point in negotiations over how to shrink the budget deficit, some lawmakers say.
“This is something that should be on the table,” said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), one of 12 members on the congressional “supercommittee” tasked with reducing the deficit. “There’s no strong economic rationale for the huge gap that exists now between the rate for wages and the rate for capital gains.”
Continue Reading This Article…
The Article: Israel rift roils Democratic ranks by Ben Smith on Politico.
The Text: Two of the Democratic Party’s core institutions are challenging a bipartisan consensus on Israel and Palestine that has dominated American foreign policy for more than a decade.
The Center for American Progress, the party’s key hub of ideas and strategy, and Media Matters, a central messaging organization, have emerged as vocal critics of their party’s staunchly pro-Israel congressional leadership and have been at odds, at times, with Barack Obama’s White House, which has acted as a reluctant ally to Benjamin Netanyahu’s Israeli government.
The differences are ones of tone – but also of bright lines of principle – and while they have haven’t yet made any visible impact on Democratic policy, they’ve shaken up the Washington foreign policy conversation and broadened the space for discussing a heretical and often critical stance on Israel heretofore confined to the political margins.
The daily battle is waged in Media Matters’ emails, on CAP’s blogs, Middle East Progress and ThinkProgress and most of all on Twitter, where a Media Mattters official, MJ Rosenberg, regularly heaps vitriol on those who disagree as “Iraq war neocon liar” (the Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg) or having “dual loyalties” to the U.S. and Israel (the Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin). And while the Center for American Progress tends to walk a more careful line, warm words for Israel can be hard to find on its blogs.
Continue Reading This Article…
The Article: Our Unimaginative Internet Economy by Mary Joyce in OWNI.
The Text: We idolize the billionaire geniuses of the Internet, people like Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook, Larry Page and Sergey Brin of Google, and Jeff Bezos of Amazon. We associate their companies with innovation and creativity and, on a technical level, this is true. But financially these firms have not innovated. They have made their money by tweaking the most boring old media monetization models – not old like the 1990?s, old like the 1740?s and 1830?s. For all their technical and managerial skill, these men are simply the ad salesmen and mail-order catalog distributors of the digital era.
You can’t make money selling digital goods.
Out in the real world people make money by selling goods and services of finite supply. On the Internet, you can’t do this. Any digital good by definition has an infinite supply. This is because, in the words of Lawrence Lessig, digital means “perfect copies, freely made.”
Hence the damage the Internet has done to companies such as newspapers, film studios, and music labels that sell goods that can be digitized (words, images, and sounds). Hence SOPA, the attempt by these industries to create legal obstacles to infinite digital supply. You can’t blame them for trying, but in the end they will lose. (I could make an argument that, because of the loss of profits by a range of media companies, the Internet has destroyed more profits than it has created, but I won’t try to do that here.)
Continue Reading This Article…
Explore the PBH Network! More funny, faster.