Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Louisiana ‘Watergate’ Young conservative activists arrested breaking into / seeking to wiretap Senator Mary Landrieu’s office. O’Keefe, the “pimp” in the ACORN incident, had been hailed as a role model for young conservatives; he now faces a possible 10 years. Is it the tip of an 'iceberg'?
The conservative young filmmaker whose undercover sting damaged a liberal activist group last year faces federal criminal charges in an alleged plot to bug the New Orleans office of Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.).
Federal investigators charged that James O'Keefe was among four men who created a ruse to enter the lawmaker's downtown office, saying they needed to repair her telephones. O'Keefe used his cellphone to take pictures of two men involved in the Jan. 25 plot, according to court records unsealed Tuesday.
Those men, Joseph Basel and Robert Flanagan, are accused in an FBI agent's sworn affidavit of impersonating telephone company workers, while O'Keefe and another man, Stan Dai, are accused of aiding the plot.
All four were taken to a suburban New Orleans jail and charged with entering federal property under false pretenses with the intent of committing a felony. If convicted, each man faces up to 10 years in prison and a fine of $250,000.
Flanagan, 24, is the son of William J. Flanagan, the acting U.S. attorney for the Western District of Louisiana, based in Shreveport. U.S. Attorney Flanagan declined to comment through an office assistant.
Landrieu said Tuesday that the situation was "very unusual and somewhat unsettling for me and my staff," and added, "I am as interested as everyone else about their motives and purpose, which I hope will become clear as the investigation moves forward."
O'Keefe, 25, became a conservative hero last year after he and fellow activist Hannah Giles secretly videotaped several regional offices of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) while posting as a pimp and a prostitute. O'Keefe's videos showed ACORN staffers appearing to offer them housing help and advice on concealing their purported prostitution business. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/26/AR2010012604145_pf.html
Citizens United Ruling: Follow-up:
Unintended Consequences: The foreign angle
While political observers have dissected much of yesterday’s 5-4 Supreme Court ruling in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, one potentially huge (and probably unintended) consequence has gotten little notice: the impact the decision could have on foreign government spending on federal campaigns.
The ruling essentially gives corporations the same rights as individuals in their ability to spend freely on political advertising, even if those advertisements explicitly advocate the election or defeat of a federal candidate. This means that candidates who support, say, increased restrictions on tobacco products could find themselves up against the corporate treasury of say, a major American tobacco company. And even the fear of $10 million in attack ads blanketing the airways come re-election time may give sitting legislators pause before taking on moneyed industries.
But it’s one thing for U.S. firms to have their say. What about foreign companies that operate U.S. subsidiaries? Many of these, like American businesses, are owned by ordinary shareholders — but a host of others are owned, in whole or in part, by the foreign governments themselves.
One prominent examples is CITGO Petroleum Company — once the American-born Cities Services Company, but purchased in 1990 by the Venezuelan government-owned Petróleos de Venezuela S.A. The Citizens United ruling could conceivably allow Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who has sharply criticized both of the past two U.S. presidents, to spend government funds to defeat an American political candidate, just by having CITGO buy TV ads bashing his target.
And it’s not just Chavez. The Saudi government owns Houston’s Saudi Refining Company and half of Motiva Enterprises. Lenovo, which bought IBM’s PC assets in 2004, is partially owned by the Chinese government’s Chinese Academy of Sciences. And Singapore’s APL Limited operates several U.S. port operations. A weakening of the limit on corporate giving could mean China, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, and any other country that owns companies that operate in the U.S. could also have significant sway in American electioneering. http://www.publicintegrity.org/articles/entry/1913/
Companies’ Discomfort w/ Congressional Solicitation: A wrinkle
Dozens of current and former corporate executives have a message for Congress: Quit hitting us up for campaign cash.
Roughly 40 executives from companies including Playboy Enterprises, ice cream maker Ben & Jerry's, the Seagram's liquor company, toymaker Hasbro, Delta Airlines and Men's Wearhouse sent a letter to congressional leaders Friday urging them to approve public financing for House and Senate campaigns. They say they are tired of getting fundraising calls from lawmakers — and fear it will only get worse after Thursday's Supreme Court ruling.
The court ruled that corporations and unions can spend unlimited money on ads urging people to vote for or against candidates. The decision was sought by interest groups including one that represents American businesses, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. They argued that restrictions on ads they could finance close to elections violated their free-speech rights, and the court agreed.
Congressional candidates who find themselves attacked by a flood of special-interest TV ads in the 2010 elections will likely reach out to their party's biggest donors for money to help them counter the blitz.
"Members of Congress already spend too much time raising money from large contributors," the business executives' letter says. "And often, many of us individually are on the receiving end of solicitation phone calls from members of Congress. With additional money flowing into the system due to the court's decision, the fundraising pressure on members of Congress will only increase."
Among the others signing the letter are current or former executives of Quaker Chemical Corp., Brita Products Co., San Diego National Bank, MetLife and Crate & Barrel.
They sent the letter through Fair Elections Now, a coalition of good-government groups who hope the Supreme Court ruling will lead Congress to pass public campaign financing legislation they have long been seeking. Others supporting public financing include former campaign strategists for President Barack Obama and former President George W. Bush. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100122/ap_on_bi_ge/us_campaign_finance_ceos?x=1
Democrats Mull possible Push-Back on Ruling:
Senior Democratic lawmakers are studying a proposal to curtail any potential foreign influence over US elections following a Supreme Court ruling last week that gives corporate America, including US subsidiaries of foreign companies, a blank cheque to support or attack political candidates.
Chris Van Hollen, a congressman from Maryland, and New York senator Chuck Schumer are considering legislation that would bar US subsidiaries of foreign companies - groups ranging from Nestlé to GlaxoSmithKline - from making direct campaign expenditures.
The potential provision would be part of broader legislation aimed at limiting the impact of the Supreme Court ruling. The lawmakers are also looking at restrictions on companies such as AIG, the insurer, which received federal bail-out funds, corporations that compete for government contracts and those that employ federal lobbyists.
Barack Obama, president, promised in his weekly address on Saturday to work quickly with lawmakers on a bill that would "repair the damage that has been done" by last week's ruling, which reversed campaign finance rules that had been in place for decades.
The ruling did not lift existing prohibitions on foreigners, who are barred from donating to US campaigns or making decisions on how campaign donations should be spent. But by opening the floodgates on political spending by companies, legal experts say, the court also appears to allow US subsidiaries of foreign companies to spend freely, as long as those making decisions about the expenditures are American citizens. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fbd66082-0951-11df-ba88-00144feabdc0.html
Action: Call for Populist-Progressive Alliance: E.J. Dionne, liberal columnist, adds his voice
An unusually blunt headline in Friday's print edition of The New York Times told the story succinctly: "Lobbies' New Power: Cross Us, and Our Cash Will Bury You."
Think of this rather persuasive moment in a chat between a corporate lobbyist and a senator: "Are you going to block that taxpayer bailout we want? Well, I'm really sorry, but we're going to have to run $2 million worth of really vicious ads against you." The same exchange might take place on tax breaks, consumer protections, environmental rules and worker safeguards.
Defenders of this vast expansion of corporate influence piously claim it's about "free speech." But since when is a corporation, a creation of laws passed by governments, entitled to the same rights as an individual citizen? This ruling will give large business entities far more power than any individual, unless you happen to be Michael Bloomberg or Bill Gates.
The only proper response to this distortion of our political system by ideologically driven justices is a popular revolt. It would be a revolt of a sort deeply rooted in the American political tradition. The most vibrant reform alliances in our history have involved coalitions between populists (who stand up for the interests and values of average citizens) and progressives (who fight against corruption in government and for institutional changes to improve the workings of our democracy). It's time for a new populist-progressive alliance. http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/hoist-your-pitchforks
Bernanke: The Democrats are rallying to support the Bush nominee, that he may have facilitated our economic plight, but that he’s been skilled at handling the crisis; The GOP largely oppose his re-nomination. Additional ammo for portraying the Democrats as Wall Street champions
When it comes to progressive priorities in the Senate, there’s one standard: 60 votes are needed. But for Ben Bernanke, there’s a second standard: 50 will be just fine, thank you.
Democratic leaders in the Senate are asking colleagues who are reluctant to support Bernanke’s nomination for a second term as Federal Reserve chairman to nevertheless vote with them to end a filibuster and allow a vote on the actual nomination. The reluctant members would then be free to vote no to express their displeasure. Several Democrats have committed to just that and others are considering it. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/26/double-standard-for-berna_n_436971.html
Couldn’t get 60 to vote for health reform, but they’ll get 60 to get Bernanke by stopping the filibuster.
Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, in a recent interview with Mike Allen of Politico warned that the financial markets could react negatively if Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke isn't confirmed for a second term.
Geithner suggested that the market would see a failed Bernanke confirmation as "very troubling," but claimed that he was "very confident" Bernanke would receive enough Senate votes to win a second term.
"The markets would view this as very troubling thing for the economy as the whole," Geithner said. "I don't think they should be uncertain. I think they can be confident because we're very confident."
Predicting that the U.S. economy will begin to show positive job growth by this Spring, Geithner added that Bernanke has done a "remarkable job of guiding this economy through the recession."
The Treasury Secretary also expressed some sympathy for the millions of Americans still struggling to find work, or otherwise impacted by the financial crisis. The country is "in a moment where people are incredibly angry and frustrated by the damage this crisis caused...You see that across the country. That's perfectly understandable, and everybody involved in this effort is bearing a lot of the brunt of that frustration and anger." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/25/geithner-warns-that-marke_n_435131.html
Spending Freeze. Aggregate, says the administration, meaning some programs will shrink, some will grow. One imagines it was meant as a bone tossed to deficit hawks while Obama pivots to talks jobs, i.e. spending. But: It’s never recommended to do such during a downturn. Seemingly a symbolic, political gesture, it will please no one and irritate / inflame others.
Nate Silver focuses on the (questionable) politics
I'll let the economists talk about the wisdom of curtailing government spending in the middle of a massive consumption deficit, but what concerns me more is the politics. Specifically, the sort of cognitive dissonance that is going to be created in the mind of the average voter when the White House is promising to freeze spending on the one hand (or, more accurately, this will be the media caricature of their gambit), and on the other, trying to defend its stimulus and its health care reform package, trying to excuse the bailout package as a necessary evil, and perhaps trying to champion new programs. Sure, the story is probably being somewhat overreported, and the spending "freeze" will only apply to certain types of spending. And it's applied relative to the already-elevated levels of spending from the FY2010 budget, and not some earlier baseline. There's more bark here than bite, in other words: "freeze on discretionary spending" means something different on K Street than it does on Main Street. But that's precisely what will make the White House (or at least the Democrats collectively) look flip-floppy. Every time the Democrats propose a jobs bill, or a big investment in alternative energy, you're going to have Krauthammer and Kristol chomping at the bit to go on Fox News and proclaim Obama to be a hypocrite. Pity Robert Gibbs trying to parse his way out of that. This is not how one wins news cycles -- or elections. http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/
Paul Krugman: Harshly condemns The Freeze
A spending freeze? That’s the brilliant response of the Obama team to their first serious political setback?
It’s appalling on every level.
It’s bad economics, depressing demand when the economy is still suffering from mass unemployment. Jonathan Zasloff writes that Obama seems to have decided to fire Tim Geithner and replace him with “the rotting corpse of Andrew Mellon” (Mellon was Herbert Hoover’s Treasury Secretary, who according to Hoover told him to “liquidate the workers, liquidate the farmers, purge the rottenness”.)
It’s bad long-run fiscal policy, shifting attention away from the essential need to reform health care and focusing on small change instead. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/obama-liquidates-himself/
Stimulus Evaluated: It did some good, though, again, it wasn’t enough
Economists believe that without President Obama's economic stimulus package, the unemployment rate would have hit 10.8 percent -- up from December's rate of 10 percent -- according to a new survey of economists by USA Today. The difference translates to an additional 1.2 million jobs that could have been lost. In fact, "almost two-thirds of the economists said the government should do more to spur job growth." The assessment is not surprising considering that experts have consistently found that the stimulus package is working, but argued that it is simply too small to counteract the economic crisis. In August, when the U.S. economy began to officially emerge from the recession, Conference Board economist Kenneth Goldstein told Bloomberg, "We've averted the worst, and there are clear signs the stimulus is working." http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2010-01-25-usa-today-economic-survey-obama-stimulus_N.htm/
Public: Stimulus Did Nothing Joe Klein condemns… the public:
Absolutely amazing poll results from CNN today about the $787 stimulus package: nearly three out of four Americans think the money has been wasted. On second thought, they may be right: it's been wasted on them...
So, two thoughts:
1. The Obama Administration has done a terrible job explaining the stimulus package to the American people...especially since there have been very few documented cases of waste so far.
2. This is yet further evidence that Americans are flagrantly ill-informed...and, for those watching Fox News, misinformed.
It is very difficult to have a democracy without citizens. It is impossible to be a citizen if you don't make an effort to understand the most basic activities of your government. It is very difficult to thrive in an increasingly competitive world if you're a nation of dodos. http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/01/25/too-dumbtothrive/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+timeblogs%2Fswampland+%28TIME%3A+Swampland%29
AND: Haiti has a long, painful road, and the coverage is fading; Multiple bombings in Iraq, and the debate is ongoing in the Administration as to making peace with elements of the Taliban in Afghanistan
As the Obama administration pours 30,000 additional troops into Afghanistan, it has begun grappling with the next great dilemma of this long war: whether to reconcile with the men who sheltered Osama bin Laden and who still have close ties to Al Qaeda.
The Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, has said he wants to reach out to the leaders of the Taliban, and administration officials acknowledge privately that they are considering the idea. But they warn that the plan is rife with political risk at home and could jeopardize a widely backed effort to lure lower-ranking, more amenable Taliban fighters back into Afghan society.
The debate, still in its early stages, could shape the next phase of America’s engagement in Afghanistan, officials said, and is every bit as complicated as the decision on whether to commit more soldiers, not least because it rekindles memories of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
On Thursday, donor countries, led by the United States, Britain and Japan, are expected to commit $100 million a year to an Afghan fund for reintegrating the foot soldiers of the Taliban with jobs, cash and other inducements. But the allies are less sanguine about dealing with the Taliban’s high command, particularly its leader, Mullah Muhammad Omar, and other “hard core” Taliban elements which, the administration bluntly declared last March, were “not reconcilable.” http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/world/asia/27diplo.html?ref=global-home&pagewanted=print
-R
