Confessore: Fix the Debt and The Can Kicks Back led by Powerful Moneyed Interests

January 21st, 2013 | Posted by Jim Cook in Economy | Politics - (2 Comments)

As the professed “Millenial” lobby shop “The Can Kicks Back” and its not-at-all-Millenial parent organization “Campaign to Fix The Debt” talk about the importance of cutting corporate tax rates, slashing health care spending and rolling back social security benefits for “the sake of the country,” reporter Nicholas Confessore discovers that the organizations’ leaders “are also lobbyists, board members or executives for corporations that have worked aggressively to shape the contours of federal spending and taxes, including many of the tax breaks that would be at the heart of any broad overhaul.”

As these lobby shops talk of broad national interests, watch for the articulation of very particular interests. “For the sake of the country” = “For the sake of me.”

, , , , ,

No Commonality in Groups Named the Common Sense Coalition

June 29th, 2012 | Posted by Jim Cook in Politics - (1 Comments)

After the fall of Americans Elect, I’ve been trying to understand The Common Sense Coalition, a nascent effort founded by two of Americans Elect’s official Advisors, Charles R. Conn and Greg Orman. While waiting for the documentation The Common Sense Coalition is legally required to produce upon request (still no word on that), I’ve been musing on the Coalition’s name.

The name “The Common Sense Coalition” implies three features:

a) a coalition, the cooperation of groups. At its website The Common Sense Coalition does not specify what groups are cooperating to form this coalition. Indeed, it is organized not as a coalition but as a 501(c)(4) corporation to influence elections with a sister 501(c)(3) corporation called The Common Sense Coalition Education Fund that engages in non-election activities and is exempted from paying taxes.

b) sense, a set of reasons for action that are based in accurate perception and rational thinking. The Common Sense Coalition is rather open about its desired actions: avoiding religious themes, cutting taxes for corporations, cutting social security and medicare, and rolling back public laws to expand health care coverage in the United States. Whether those actions are based in accurate perception and rational thinking is a matter for you to decide.

c) commonality, the sharing of the above sense among the majority of rational, perceptive folk.

Oddly, there are a lot of self-named “Coalitions” out there with “Common Sense” in their titles. If the “common sense” being promoted by The Common Sense Coalition is really common sense, then all these Coalitions seeking “Common Sense” should be seeking just about the same thing. Are they?

Common Sense Coalition is the name of a talk radio program from Missouri that discusses agricultural and rural issues, criticizes animal rights activists, and adds in a bit of Christian-centered nationalism.

In February 2011, commonsensecoalition.com redirected to energyliteracy.org, the website of Energy Literacy Advocates, previously named the CommonSense Coalition, “formed to work on ‘Mountain West Solutions to the National Energy Crisis.’”

In August 2002, commonsensecoalition.com was a website dedicated to stopping the the Virginia Beach City Sticker, a decal the city required residents to display as proof that they’d paid car registration fees.

In 2009, the Coalition for Common Sense in Government Procurement sued the United States Government so that its industry members — many of whom were in the pharmaceutical industry — could charge the government more than the government’s maximum price for a drug when supplying the Department of Defense. It also advocates for maintaining corporate secrets regarding products when the federal government procures and uses those products.

In 2005, a group of business interests in Madison Wisconsin organized a “Coalition for Common Sense” to push for less regulation of business and a loosening of standards on lobbying Madison municipal leaders.

The Common Sense Coalition of Montgomery County, Tennessee is a Tea Party affiliated organization that has a defunct website but continues on Facebook, where it criticizes health care reform and hosts Republican candidates for local political office like Lauri Day and Mark Green, along with Libertarian party city council member Wallace Redd.

The Coalition for Common Sense is an industry-funded advocacy association in Louisiana that seeks to make it more difficult for workers in the state to file disability claims.

Common Sense San Francisco is an industry front group funded by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company that successfully campaigned to stop San Francisco from forming a publicly-owned energy utility.

Common Sense San Joaquin is another industry front group funded by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company formed to resist efforts by San Joaquin government officials in California to form a public energy utility.

In 2008, the Common Sense Coalition was organized by Mike Huckabee campaign organizer Bill Goins and Christian Coalition lobbyist Michael A. Brown to support candidates for office who would infuse government policy with Christian theology.

In 2010, the Coalition for Common Sense Use advocated for the U.S. Forest Service to reverse its decision banning ATVs from public land after ATV users downed trees and messed up the air, water and soil with their vehicles.

The Environmental Common Sense Coaltion favors allowing motorized vehicles to run off-trail in California public lands.

Common Sense Issues, Inc., also called the Common Sense Issues Coalition of Cincinnati, Ohio spent money in the 2010 and 2012 election cycles to oppose Mitt Romney for President, to support Mike Huckabee for President, and to oppose various Democrats like Stephanie Herseth Sandlin for office. It has a pro-Christian, anti-Islamic, anti-abortion, anti-gay agenda. It has not disclosed its donors.

In 2008, a “Common Sense Coalition” incorporated in Indianapolis sent out a mailer opposing New York Democratic politician Sheldon Silver in his campaign for re-election because of the way he’d handled a case of rape within his staff.

The Montana Common Sense Coalition aims to reduce drunken driving through state legislation.

Until it apparently disbanded in the 2000s, the Common Sense Foundation tackled “issues such as race and the death penalty, standardized testing in schools, living and working conditions in North Carolina, and the state’s mental health system,” most often from a left-of-center perspective.

There seems to be no substantive sense common to all these groups with “Common Sense” in their name. The only commonality I can find is a desire to advance a set of particular interests under the soothing banner of “common sense.”

, , ,

Despite Pledge, Americans Elect takes Special Interest Money from Chair of Promotion Marketing Association

July 13th, 2011 | Posted by Jim Cook in Alternative Parties | Americans Elect | Economy | Election 2012 | Politics - (10 Comments)
“None of our funding comes from special interests or lobbyists.” — Americans Elect, July 2011
Special Interest. Noun. an individual, group, or corporation having a special interest in usually a particular part of the economy and receiving or seeking through political pressure special advantages from the government often to the detriment of the general welfare — usually used in plural — Merriam Webster Third New International Dictionary

Americans Elect is a corporation that has already obtained a 2012 presidential ballot line in states across the country. Like it or not, the Americans Elect corporate candidate for president will play a role in the presidential election next year.

Americans Elect has gained its ballot access thanks to an army of paid signature gatherers. Americans Elect owes a debt of gratitude to its funders for making its presidential ballot access possible.

Who are those funders? We largely don’t know, because after funneling $1.55 million of his own fortune into Americans Elect, Chair Peter Ackerman reclassified the enterprise as a 501c4 corporation, making its contributions and expenditures a secret. Thanks to the Citizens United supreme court ruling, Americans Elect has no legal obligation to disclose its source of funds. Despite requests, Americans Elect has refused to publish a list of the names of all the people who are propping up the presidential bid.

However, this week information about the sources of Americans Elect’s cash opened up a bit. The corporation’s campaign contribution collector, Piryx, quietly posted an incomplete list of those people who have given money to Americans Elect and have agreed to share their identity on Piryx’s “giving stream.” It’s an incomplete list, missing the names of people who wish to remain anonymous, but it’s good enough to test Americans Elect’s “no special interest money” pledge. If we can find any special interests in the Piryx “giving stream,” then Americans Elect’s claim will be debunked.

We’ve already found two special interest sources of money to Americans Elect:

1. $1.55 million contribution by Peter Ackerman, who is not only Chairman of Americans Elect but also a private wealth investor, a corporate takeover player, part owner of grocery corporation Fresh Direct, and owner in control of the marketing firm Emak Worldwide.

2. An undisclosed amount contributed by hedge fund operator Kirk Rostron.

This morning, we add a third special interest contributor to Americans Elect.

3. Jim Holbrook, who as CEO of the marketing firms Emak Worldwide, Neighbor and Upshot has special interests in the advancement of the marketing industry. More than this, though, Jim Holbrook is Chairman of the Promotion Marketing Association, a trade organization for the $750 Billion industry. The website of the Promotion Marketing Association makes it clear that it has special interests and is dedicated to pursuing those special interests in the spheres of American law and government. It has an entire section devoted to “Legal and Governmental Affairs”, with a publication entitled “PMA Legal Watch,” a “PMA International Law Book,” and an annual Marketing Law Conference. The PMA Bylaws stipulate explicitly that it is an organization dedicating to pursuing the interests of the promotion marketing industry:

The corporation is organized and shall be operated exclusively as the premier trade association for the principal purpose of advancing the interests, addressing the needs, and serving as the preeminent knowledge source for those companies and individuals that have a professional interest in and/or utilize integrated and promotion marketing, and assisting them in better serving the interests of their customers and/or consumers, including by achieving specific, measurable, brand-building goals.

The key elements of this mission are… d. To promote and protect the interests of those who use integrated and promotion marketing techniques; e. To monitor, communicate and encourage an understanding of the laws and regulations that apply to the use of integrated and promotional marketing techniques; … g. To cooperate with federal, state and local government authorities for the good of the consumer, the community and the integrated marketing industry;

… Section 7 – No member shall engage in any conduct that is prejudicial to the best interest of this Association…

Jim Holbrook may be a very nice person, but his multiple positions as a corporate leader and advocate in the marketing industry mark him as a representative of a special interest. If his contribution doesn’t qualify as a special interest source, it’s hard to imagine what would.

Americans Elect says it welcomes citizens’ questions. I am sending a question regarding this contribution to Americans Elect through its online form and through the e-mail address info@americanselect.org. The question reads:

“Jim Holbrook is the CEO of three marketing corporations: Emak Worldwide, Upshot and Neighbor. He is also the Chairman of the Promotion Marketing Association, which describes itself explicitly as an interest advocacy trade group. Americans Elect has pledged that ‘None of our funding comes from special interests.’ If Americans Elect agrees that Jim Holbrook’s contribution is a special interest source, when will it return the contribution? If Americans Elect disagrees that Jim Holbrook’s contribution is a special interest source, then what is Americans Elect’s definition of ‘special interest’?”

If I receive a reply, I will post it here in the comments section. If you do not see notice of a reply from Americans Elect, it means that Americans Elect has not replied to my question.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Stephanie Schriock in Three Steps: the Mismessaging of Emily’s List

March 4th, 2011 | Posted by Jim Cook in Democrats | Legislation | Politics | Republicans | Sex and Gender - (2 Comments)

Stephanie Schriock, the President of Emily’s List, wrote an essay this week to assert the need for the election of Democratic women in particular, not Democratic women and men or progressive women and men, in order for issues that she sees as particularly women’s issues to be resolved in a progressive manner. Her argument can be summed up in three steps:

1. “Every now and then in this job, I get asked why it matters that we elect more Democratic women to Congress, as opposed to more progressives, or just more Democrats.”

2. “Because the GOP is doing everything it can to take away our access to health care, our ability to plan and care for a family, and our opportunities to make successful, safe, and healthy lives for ourselves and our families. Women – and men – are speaking out against it.”

3. “Anyone can make the argument that cutting funding for cancer screenings will undoubtedly cost us countless lives and dollars. We can make the argument that cutting access to family planning hurts women who want to plan families. We can lay out in bar graphs and pie charts how cutting Head Start means paying exponentially more down the road. And we can say that redefining rape to distinguish between “forcible” and otherwise, makes no sense at all.

But the best arguments come from the women who have seized the opportunities Republicans are trying to take away, made the decisions they’re trying to limit, and used the preventative services they’re trying to defund.”

The reasons in #2 and #3 are no reason at all to “elect more Democratic women to Congress, as opposed to more progressives, or just more Democrats.” As Schriock states herself, “Anyone can make the argument” about policy issues that impact women, and “Women – and men – are speaking out against” Republican gender-related policies.

Making Arguments
One claim Schriock makes — that “the best arguments come from” the women who are affected by the Republicans’ policy changes — can’t be empirically tested, since it is a matter of opinion as to who is making “the best arguments” against the Republicans’ policy changes. Schriock might claim that the Democratic and liberal men in Congress are lousy argument-makers, but without a metric to measure rhetorical lousiness by, there’s really no way to empirically test that claim.

Conceptually speaking, Schriock’s assertions in this regard are weak. In her essay, she asserts that women are the ones with experience in regard to cancer, families, the education of children and sexual assault, and that they therefore must be better speakers on policies related to them. It is true that women are sexually assaulted more often than men. But men suffer from cancer. Men have families and are part of making them. Men have children. Schriock’s conception of gender as something that only women have is a really old-fashioned idea: each of the above subjects (excepting cancer, which is oddly placed in her essay) mostly stems from the relationship between men and women, which means men play a role as well. Indeed, as our conceptions of family and parenthood expand in America, there are families in which parenting occurs without women at all and there is an increasing number of women who do not have children or families of their own.

The implications of Schriock’s old-fashioned thinking, if it were to be practically applied, are absurd: should the disproportionate number of women politicians who don’t have children not be recruited to run for higher office, since they wouldn’t have the experience to talk about families and childrens’ education? Is Tammy Baldwin an illegitimate voice for women’s experience because she is a lesbian? After all, she doesn’t have children or a family? I don’t think that’s a fair point, but it is a point that follows from Schriock’s thinking. Also following from Schriock’s thinking would be screening out women from candidacy who haven’t had cancer or who haven’t been raped, because they wouldn’t be able to share anecdotes from their lives. Do we really want to go there?

Taking Action
If we follow what our Representatives DO in Washington, then we have a metric by which we can judge the relative performance of women and men. In her essay, Schriock puts forward H.R. 3, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act as an example of anti-woman legislation. Let’s take Schriock’s example of H.R. 3 and ask this question: If we pay attention to what members of Congress do, does it make sense to “elect more Democratic women to Congress, as opposed to more progressives, or just more Democrats”?

H.R. 3 has not yet been considered on the floor of the House, but it has gained 212 official supporters — the primary sponsor Republican Chris Smith and 211 cosponsors. Among the cosponsors, how many of them are women? How many are Democratic women? How many are progressive women? How many of the cosponsors are men, Democratic men, progressive men?

The following are the women in the House of Representatives who are among the 212 official supporters of H.R. 3:

Michele Bachmann, Republican
Diane Black, Republican
Marsha Blackburn, Republican
Ann Marie Buerkle, Republican
Renee Ellmers, Republican
Jo Ann Emerson, Republican
Virginia Foxx, Republican
Kay Granger, Republican
Vicky Hartzler, Republican
Lynn Jenkins, Republican
Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Republican
Candice Miller, Republican
Sue Myrick, Republican
Kristi Noem, Republican
Martha Roby, Republican
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Republican
Jean Schmidt, Republican

Not one Democratic Party woman in the House of Representatives has cosponsored H.R. 3.

To measure whether a member of Congress is “progressive,” let’s look at House congressional action scores from That’s My Congress for the 112th Congress. That’s My Congress calls a member “liberal” if they have a score of at least 20, “moderately liberal” if they have a score of at least 40, and “strongly liberal” if they have a score of at least 70. Measured this way, not a single progressive woman in Congress has cosponsored H.R. 3.

What about the men? There are a lot of men in Congress who have sponsored or cosponsored H.R. 3, 195 of them to be exact. But only 10 of those men are Democrats. They are (listed with their congressional action score):

Dan Boren: -33
Jerry Costello: -10
Mark Critz: -28
Joe Donnelly: -35
Daniel Lipinksi: -15
Mike McIntyre: -23
Collin Peterson: -15
Nick Rahall: 15
Mike Ross: -33
Heath Shuler: -10

A larger number of House women who are Republicans than House men who are Democrats support H.R. 3. That makes political party a better predictor of support for H.R. 3 than gender. The best predictor of support for H.R. 3 is “progressiveness”, the very quality that Stephie Schriock says is insufficient for promoting women’s interests in legislation. Not one member of Congress who scores as a liberal has come out in support of H.R. 3: not one liberal woman, and not one liberal man.

Committee Action: What Have They Done?
Some might say that cosponsorship isn’t the best measure of political action in the Congress. Indeed, Stephanie Schriock has pointed to committee action in her essay, vaguely declaring that a lot of “bunk” was said and not challenged during Judiciary Committee proceedings. Let’s look at Judiciary Committee proceedings more than vaguely and see what legislative actions were taken.

In yesterday’s House Judiciary Committee markup of H.R. 3 before it was sent to the House floor, there were 14 amendments offered by Democratic committee members to try and blunt the force of H.R. 3. 9 of the amendments to weaken H.R. 3 were introduced by men, 5 by women. All Republican Representatives on the committee who were present (including woman Rep. Sandy Adams) voted against these amendments; All Democratic Representatives who were present (including 10 men) voted for the amendments. With all the amendments rejected, the Judiciary Committee then voted to send H.R. 3 to the floor for a final vote on passage. All Republican Representatives on the committee who were present (including woman Rep. Sandy Adams) voted against these amendments; All Democratic Representatives who were present (including 10 men) voted for the amendments.

As with cosponsorship of H.R. 3 — the bill that Stephanie Schriock picked as her exemplar — committee votes on H.R. 3 turn out to be better understood along party lines than along gender lines.

Conclusion
“Every now and then in this job, I get asked why it matters that we elect more Democratic women to Congress, as opposed to more progressives, or just more Democrats.” Emily’s List President Stephanie Schriock raised the question, but the answer seems to be that it actually doesn’t matter, at least if your motivation is to see progressive congressional action on policies of interest to women. The only reason left over for the election of “more Democratic women, as opposed to more progressives,” is an interest in seeing the number of women in Congress rise for its own sake, a motivation unrelated to policy.

Is the prioritization of gonads over policy what Emily’s List stands for? Ask Stephanie Schriock.

, , , , , , , , , ,