VRWC news: gonna be a long thread

[boutons_deux]

Post analysis shows Koch brothers raised $400 million for shadow political network

An analysis by The Washington Post and the Center for Responsive Politics published Sunday revealed that Koch Industries-backed en ies operating in the opaque world of political dark money raised more than $400 million during the 2012 election cycle largely from anonymous donors.

The Post and CRP examined 17 conservative groups that made up the Koch network of loosely-affiliated organizations and found that they had raised at least $407 million during the 2012 campaign. The amount is comparable to the combined spending of all unions in state, federal and local races, and dwarfs all other sources of political spending in 2012 other than, perhaps, the Karl Rove-associated
Crossroads super PAC and nonprofit group which brought in $325 million in the last cycle.

It isn’t clear, despite the Post analysis, how much the Koch brothers themselves contributed to the affiliated groups, in part because they used complicated and sophisticated financial processes to shield the iden ies of donors.

The Post nailed down two nodes through which much of the money passed, though. The Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce, with a board of current and former Koch Industries officials, brought in nearly $256 million in 2011.

The second node, TC4 Trust, raised more than $66 million in three years before it was shuttered in June 2012, according to tax filings.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/01/0...e+Raw+Story%29

[boutons_deux]

Koch World 2014

The billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch are convening some of the country’s richest Republican donors on Sunday at a resort near Palm Springs, Calif., to raise millions of dollars for efforts to shape the political landscape for years to come.

It’s the cash that can possibly kick Democrats out of the Senate majority this fall and shape the philosophy and agenda of the GOP conference – not to mention the 2016 presidential field.

The Koch political operation has become among the most dominant forces in American politics, rivaling even the official Republican Party in its ability to shape policy debates and elections. But it’s mostly taken a piecemeal approach, sticking to its sweet spots, while leaving other tasks to outsiders, or ad hoc coalitions of allies.

That’s changing. This year, the Kochs’ close allies are rolling out a new, more integrated approach to politics. That includes wading into Republican primaries for the first time to ensure their ideal candidates end up on the ticket, and also centralizing control of their network to limit headache-inducing freelancing by affiliated operatives.

The shift is best illustrated in the expansion of three pieces of the Koch political network expected to be showcased or represented at the three-day meeting in Palm Springs, whose evolving roles were described to POLITICO by several sources.

• Center for Shared Services: a nonprofit recruiter and administrative support team for other Koch-backed groups, which provides assistance with everything from scouting office space to accounting to furniture and security.

• Freedom Partners: a nonprofit hub that doled out $236 million in 2012 to an array of conservative nonprofits that is now expanding its own operation so that it can fulfill many of the functions of past grantees.

• Aegis Strategic: a political consulting firm started last year by Koch-allied operatives who will recruit, train and support candidates who espouse free-market philosophies like those beloved by the Kochs, and will also work with nonprofit groups in the Koch network, like Freedom Partners, with which it has a contract to provide policy analysis.

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.c...8-3F90B914A730

[boutons_deux]

Koch Brothers Left a Confidential Do ent at Their Last Donor Conference—Read It Here

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/02/koch-brothers-palm-springs-donor-list

[boutons_deux]

Wisconsin Legislature Joins Radical Right's Call For A Federal Cons utional Convention

The most recent state to adopt ALEC'S model to amend the U.S. Cons ution





February 10, 2014 |

Wisconsin is the latest state to line up behind a national effort to amend the Cons ution and cripple the federal government's ability to spend -- likely forcing steep cuts in popular earned benefit programs such as Social Security and blocking Congress from responding to economic downturns or natural disasters -- apparently with the ultimate goal of completely overhauling America's system of governance.

Assembly Joint Resolution 81, which passed out of committee on Wednesday, would call for an Article V Cons utional Convention to force a federal balanced budget amendment. Article V of the U.S. Cons ution provides that thirty-four states (two-thirds) can trigger a convention to propose an amendment, which must then be ratified by 38 states (three-fourths). The legislation closely tracks the “Balanced Budget Amendment Resolution” from the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and allied advocacy groups promoting an Article V convention.

“AJR 81 comes right out of the ‘Convention of States’ workshop and materials presented at ALEC where state legislators were promised bundled campaign contributions and grassroots support if they joined this effort to amend the federal cons ution,” said Rep. Chris Taylor, a Madison Democrat who attended ALEC’s Annual Meeting in Chicago last summer, in a statement. “I am alarmed that this effort is now making its way through the Wisconsin legislature and is tentatively scheduled to be considered by the full Assembly next Tuesday.”

ALEC has published a “how-to” manual for an Article V cons utional amendment, and at its last two meetings hosted workshops on amendment strategy from the group “Citizens for Self Governance,” led by Tea Party Patriots co-founder Mark Meckler, and whose board includes Wisconsinite Eric O’Keefe (who has spoken publicly about being subpoenaed in Wisconsin’s John Doe probe in his role as Director of Wisconsin Club for Growth). Citizens for Self Governance seeks to use the amendment process to severely restrict federal power, for example by redefining the Commerce Clause to prohibit Congress from enacting child labor or anti-discrimination laws. In recent years, the Article V idea has spread in Republican circles thanks to right-wing radio host and author Mark Levin, and has been elevated by the likes of Glenn Beck.

Following ALEC’s December 2013 meeting in Washington D.C., the primary sponsor of AJR 81, Wisconsin Rep. Chris Kapenga (R-Delafield), co-organized a convening of around 100 state legislators to discuss the Article V amendment process. (Last year, Rep. Kapenga was one of nine Wisconsin lawmakers who told a Tea Party group they would seek to arrest federal officials implementing the Affordable Care Act in the state). A followup meeting is planned for Spring of this year.

The push for a cons utional convention has garnered limited attention in the mainstream media. "A lot of Americans outside of these conservative circles have no idea this is going on, that all of these strategies are being developed to basically neuter the federal government, and what the ramifications of those strategies would be in the long run,” says Rachel Tabachnik, a research fellow at Political Research Associates, who has tracked the evolution of “state’s rights” efforts to amend the cons ution. “

These states are seeking to undo all civil rights, social safety nets, and regulatory functions that they don't want."

Goal: Cripple Federal Responses to Economic Crises and Disasters

Although some advocates have pushed for a broader call for a cons utional convention -- the Convention of States group, for example, hopes to "call a convention for a particular subject rather than a particular amendment" to radically alter state-federal relations -- AJR 81 is focused more narrowly on calling for a balanced budget amendment.

Since World War II, the federal government has deliberately used deficit spending as a policy tool to soften economic downturns, preventing recessions from turning into depressions by spending on programs like unemployment benefits, targeted tax breaks, or jobs training. Tax revenues decline during a recession, just as these necessary expenditures increase. Similarly, natural disasters can wreak havoc on the economy, and disaster relief can also require deficit spending. A Balanced Budget Amendment would handcuff the government at a time when economic crises, drought, and catastropic hurricanes are on the rise.

As Jon Pea of the Wisconsin Budget Project explains:

A balanced budget amendment in the U.S. Cons ution would result in much longer and deeper recessions and would cause unnecessary job losses. When the economy goes into a dive and people are without jobs, the need for food stamps, health insurance and unemployment insurance rise sharply. Since tax revenue typically falls as the need for those programs rises, a balanced budget would require cuts to these safety net programs and other areas of spending at the worst possible time. That would not only take away vital help during a recession, but would also exacerbate the downturn by requiring program cuts and/or tax increases as the recession worsens.

A highly respected economic forecasting firm, Macroeconomic Advisers, considered the effects of a balanced budget amendment during a period like the recent recession. They described the impact on the economy of cutting spending at such a time as “catastrophic” – leading to depression-like conditions and millions of additional jobs lost. A balanced budget amendment is also likely to jeopardize Social Security and other earned assistance upon which retirees depend.

Companion Bill to Rein-In "Runaway Convention" Reflects ALEC Model

The right is not united in their support for the Article V cons utional amendment effort. The U.S. Cons ution has never been amended through the Article V process, and many fear a "runaway convention" where delegates approve amendments other than a balanced budget -- for example, an amendment that would address the harm caused by the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision. The Heritage Foundation opposes an Article V convention for these reasons. One of the most consistent critics of the Article V effort has been The John Birch Society; the Convention of States group has taken their criticism seriously enough to post a response on their website.

In response to those fears, Rep. Kapenga has introduced a companion bill, AB 635, aimed at stymieing a “runaway convention” by declaring that delegates to the convention may not vote on other issues besides the balanced budget amendment, and providing that those who do will be immediately dismissed by the other delegates. This is nearly a word-for-word copy of the ALEC “Resolution for Limitations on Authority of state Delegates to a ‘Convention for Proposing Amendments’ under Article V of the US Cons ution.”

Almost every Republican member of the Wisconsin Assembly has signed on as co-sponsors to AJR 81 and AB 635. Lobbying for the bill in Wisconsin are Americans for Prosperity, the state U.S. Chamber of Commerce affiliate Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, as well as the National Federation of Independent Business, which purports to represent small business but is a front for right-wing corporate interests.

Outside of Tea Party circles, it does not appear that most Wisconsinites were clamoring for their legislators to push this proposal. But it does not appear that citizen support is a necessary component of the Article V convention effort.

At last year's ALEC meeting in Chicago, where an Article V convention was discussed, Rep. Taylor recounted a conversation with a private sector ALEC member. In response to her concerns about average Americans not wanting a radical overhaul of their Cons ution, he told her: "You really don't need people to do this. You just need control over the legislature and you need money, and we have both."

http://www.alternet.org/civil-libert...age=1#bookmark

And of course ALEC's money is Kock Bros, USCoC, corporations, and secret funding, aka, THE VRWC

[boutons_deux]

Repug/VRWC War On Employees

Confederate TN Repugs threatening to penalize VW workers if they exercise their RIGHT to form a union.

Union Drive Doesn’t Bother Management, but G.O.P. Fumes

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/12/bu...er=rss&emc=rss

[boutons_deux]

War on Employees

The Latest Attack on Public Sector Unions: Paycheck Protection in Pennsylvania and Missouri

The GOP offensive against public sector unions at the state level that began in earnest in Wisconsin and Ohio in early 2011 is far from over. In its more recent manifestation, Republican politicians in Missouri and Pennsylvania are once again promoting so-called "paycheck protection" legislation, which they claim will protect the interests of ordinary workers. Nothing could be further from the truth. In common with similar legislation that right-wing groups have promoted for the past two decades, the goal of this legislation is to silence the political voice of working people and ensure that the wealthy dominate state elections.

Paycheck "Protection" Has Always Been a Partisan Right-Wing Ploy

Along with legislation restricting public sector bargaining and right-to-work laws, paycheck protection legislation - which either restricts unions' ability to raise or spend money on politics - has been one of the main anti-union initiatives that conservative activists have promoted at the state level. Starting with the very first legislation in Washington State in 1992, a state-level network of right-wing organizations promoted paycheck legislation through ballot initiatives and bills. Paycheck legislation has always been a cynical attempt to tilt the balance of political power in favor of right-wing politicians who promote that legislation, not an effort to protect individual union members and non-union employees. In 1998, President Clinton explained that paycheck is a partisan power solution in search of an imaginary problem: "This is an attempt to create the impression that workers are being put upon when they aren't. And it's being done to alter the balance of power in the political debate."

http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/21...a-and-missouri

the paychecks being protected and increased are those of top management and investors.

[boutons_deux]

How The Far Right Plans To Paralyze The Government With A Cons utional Convention

a new movement on the far right hopes to change American history and the powers of the federal government by convening a so-called “Convention of the States,” which aims to severally limit the powers of the federal government with “a balanced budget amendment, clarified definitions of the general welfare and commerce clauses, and limits on federal taxation.” The idea is being promoted by right-wing heroes Glenn Beck, Mark Levin and David Barton. But its biggest ally is the right’s most effective tool for passing legislation in the states.

Wisconsin is the latest state to consider a pe ion for a national Cons utional convention using language promoted by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the Koch-funded non-profit network of state legislatures behind Stand Your Ground and Ag-Gag laws, which make it harder to report animal abuse. And to make sure the convention, which is supposed to be open-ended, doesn’t get hijacked for non-balanced-budget-related amendments — to, say, overturn Citizens United, ALEC is also promoting a companion bill that would limit the convention.

The right’s fixation on a balanced budget amendment is just another gambit to cut taxes since most iterations include severe limits on taxation. Jon Pea of the Wisconsin Budget Project explains how such an amendment would inflict massive damage during economic crises:

A balanced budget amendment in the U.S. Cons ution would result in much longer and deeper recessions and would cause unnecessary job losses. When the economy goes into a dive and people are without jobs, the need for food stamps, health insurance and unemployment insurance rise sharply. Since tax revenue typically falls as the need for those programs rises, a balanced budget would require cuts to these safety net programs and other areas of spending at the worst possible time. That would not only take away vital help during a recession, but would also exacerbate the downturn by requiring program cuts and/or tax increases as the recession worsens.

A highly respected economic forecasting firm, Macroeconomic Advisers, considered the effects of a balanced budget amendment during a period like the recent recession. They described the impact on the economy of cutting spending at such a time as “catastrophic” — leading to depression-like conditions and millions of additional jobs lost. A balanced budget amendment is also likely to jeopardize Social Security and other earned assistance upon which retirees depend.

http://www.nationalmemo.com/watch-fa...al-convention/

[boutons_deux]

Packing the courts, state and federal, with extremist judges is a major part of the VRWC strategy

Beware: Clarence Thomas Is One Of America’s Top Legal Minds

It’s “how long has it been since Clarence Thomas asked a question?” season again! At irregular intervals, journalists like to remind the nation that Justice Thomas doesn’t like to ask questions from the bench. Here’s a 2011 piece discussing Thomas’s “5-Year Silence,” a 2012 piece regarding his “Six Years of Silence,” and and 2013 piece pondering “Why Clarence Thomas STILL Hasn’t Asked A Question In Seven Years.” This year, the New Yorker’s Jeffrey Toobin kicks off the season with the provocative le “Clarence Thomas’s Disgraceful Silence.”

His piece labeling Thomas’s silence “disgraceful” also notes that, when Thomas is not hearing oral arguments, he’s “imported once outré conservative ideas, about such issues as gun rights under the Second Amendment and deregulation of political campaigns, into the mainstream.” In 2011,

Toobin laid out some of Thomas’s contributions to the law in greater detail. He also quotes Yale law Professor Akhil Reed Amar, who compares Thomas to the late Justice Hugo Black: “Early in their careers, they were often in dissent, sometimes by themselves, but they were content to go their own way. But once Earl Warren became Chief Justice the Court started to come to Black. It’s the same with Thomas and the Roberts Court. Thomas’s views are now being followed by a majority of the Court in case after case.”

Thomas And Black

It’s a bit of an exaggeration to suggest that Thomas has reshaped the law in his own image — Thomas wants to shrink the federal government’s power to the point where national bans on child labor and whites-only lunch counters are uncons utional, a position that no other justice has taken.

In Thomas’s cons utional narrative, things like federal child labor laws aren’t uncons utional just because Clarence Thomas says so, they are uncons utional because they are not “faithful to the original understanding” of the Cons ution.

Originalism, in other words, enables a justice who wants to bring about radical, sweeping change to the Cons ution to argue that this change is legitimate even if it finds no support in prior jurisprudence. It is a tactic that can be deployed by liberals like Black and by conservatives like Thomas. And when it succeeds, it can transform the Cons ution into something that judges of the previous era would barely recognize.

Much of Thomas’s vision of the Cons ution, however, is easy to recognize. It is often the very same vision Roosevelt appointed justices like Black to roll back, a vision rooted less in the original understanding of the Cons ution than in a narrow understanding of the Cons ution that President George Washington rejected in the very early days of the Republic.

Thomas’s mere presence on the Court, combined with his efforts to grant legitimacy to long discarded doctrines, gives credibility to this narrow vision of the Cons ution that it could otherwise never enjoy. Before the Tea Party even existed, before Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) claimed that the “hard part about believing in freedom” is allowing whites-only lunch counters to exist — and before three of Thomas’s colleagues joined him in trying to judicially repeal the Affordable Care Act based on a legal argument that, in one Reagan-appointed judge’s words, had no basis “in either the text of the Cons ution or Supreme Court precedent” — Thomas sat silently on the Supreme Court’s bench, pondering how to transform the Tea Party’s wildest dreams into reality.

Clarence Thomas is not a lightweight. He is one of the more intelligent members of the Supreme Court. And he is one of the most dangerous men in America. Progressives dismiss his intellect at their peril.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...re-fact-peril/

[boutons_deux]

The corporatocracy continues its predation to over and suck even more wealth out of Human-Americans

Conservative group Alec trains sights on city and local government

The rightwing group Alec is preparing to launch a new nationwide network that will seek to replicate its current influence within state legislatures in city councils and municipalities.

The American Legislative Exchange Council, founded in 1973, has become one of the most pervasive advocacy operations in the nation. It brings elected officials together with representatives of major corporations, giving those companies a direct channel into legislation in the form of Alec “model bills”.

Critics have decried the network as a “corporate bill mill” that has spread uniformly-drafted rightwing legislation from state to state. Alec has been seminal, for instance, in the replication of Florida’s controversial “stand-your-ground” gun law in more than 20 states.

Now the council is looking to take its blueprint for influence over statewide lawmaking and drill it down to the local level. It has already quietly set up, and is making plans for the public launch of, an offshoot called the American City County Exchange (ACCE) that will target policymakers from “villages, towns, cities and counties”.

The new organisation will offer corporate America a direct conduit into the policy making process of city councils and municipalities. Lobbyists acting on behalf of major businesses will be able to propose resolutions and argue for new profit-enhancing legislation in front of elected city officials, who will then return to their council chambers and seek to implement the proposals.

In its early publicity material, Alec says the new network will be “America’s only free market forum for village, town, city and county policymakers”. Jon Russell, ACCE’s director, declined to comment on the initiative.

Alec spokesman Wilhelm Meierling also declined to say how many corporate and city council members ACCE has attracted so far, or to say when the new initiative would be formally unveiled. But he confirmed that its structure would mirror that of Alec’s work in state legislatures by bringing together city, county and municipal elected officials with corporate lobbyists.

“As a group that focuses on limited government, free markets and federalism, we believe our message rings true at the municipal level just as it does in state legislatures,” he said.

In December, the Guardian revealed that Alec was facing funding problems as a result of fallout from its backing of “stand-your-ground” laws, in the wake of the shooting in Florida of the black teenager Trayvon Martin.

The Guardian also disclosed that Alec had initiated a “prodigal son project”, Biblical! designed to woo back corporate donors that had broken off relations with the group amid the gun-law furore.

The extension of its techniques to city councils and municipalities across America offers Alec the chance to open up a potential source of funding that might help it solve its budgetary crisis. There are almost 500,000 local elected officials, many with considerable powers over schools and local services that could be attractive to big business.
Alec makes the appeal to corporations explicit in its funding material for the new ACCE exchange. It offers companies “founders committee” status in return for $25,000 a year and “council committee” membership for $10,000.

By joining ACCE’s council committee, corporate lobbyists can “participate in policy development and network with other entrepreneurs and municipal officials from around the country”. In committee meetings, lobbyists will be allowed to “present facts and opinions for discussion” and introduce resolutions for new policies that they want to see implemented in a city. At the end of such meetings, the elected officials present in the room will take a vote before returning to their respective council chambers armed with new legislative proposals.

Nick Surgey of the Center for Media and Democracy, which monitors Alec’s activities, said: “It just wouldn’t be possible for any corporation to effectively lobby the hundreds of thousands of local elected officials in the US, which until now has left our local mayors and school board members largely free from the grasps of coordinated lobbyists. Alec is now trying to change that.”

One of the main criticisms that have been levelled against Alec is that its influence distorts the democratic process by giving corporations a handle over lawmaking. Similar fears are now being expressed about the intentions of ACCE in American cities.

Natalia Rudiak, a Democratic city council member in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, said she was “offended” by the suggestion she needed an outside body such as ACCE, which is licensed in Arlington, Virginia, to tell her what her community needed.

“Local politics in America is the purest form of democracy,” she said. “There is no buffer between me and the public. So why would I want the involvement of a third party acting on behalf of a few corporate interests?”

Rudiak added that she found ACCE’s boast that it will be “America’s only free market forum” patronising.

“If by ‘free market’ they mean weighing supply against demand in the best interests of the people of Pittsburgh,” she said, “then we are debating those issues in the council chamber every single day.”

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...vernment/print

ALEC has the same objective as corporations, tiest possible product for highest possible price.

Certainly enough of those "500,000 local officials" are easy targets for corruption by ACCE.

[boutons_deux]

The TPP Tries to Put a “No Exit” Sign on America’s Crapified Health Care System by Allowing Medical Procedures to be Patented World-wide

Hundreds of thousands of people — especially those who can’t afford concierge medical care — increasingly look to medical tourism to exit the tapeworm-infested brutal and hideously expensive U.S. health care rental extraction device system, with its Taylorist methods and penitentiary-like facilities, in favor of more humane and more reasonably priced alternatives available in other countries; heck, there’s even a medical tourism trade association!

Of course, “medical tourism” might be more accurately called “medical arbitrage.” For example, my privileged position as a citizen of the United States, once a first-world country in areas beyond the Acela corridor, still en les me to various free gifts, including the high value of the US dollar, which I can arbitrage to purchase health care in not-first-world countries with lower value currencies and first-class — and not brutal — care. The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) because it requires that medical procedures can be patented, will lessen this arbitrage opportunity in medical care by raising the price of medical procedures, thereby making you less able to get the kind of health care that you need and deserve, by raising its price.[1] Here is the relevant draft text, from TPP’s Article QQ.E.2, with the U.S. proposal underlined:

[US: Consistent with paragraph 1] each Party [US proposes; AU/NZ/VN/BN/CL/PE/MY/SG/CA/MX oppose: shall make patents available for inventions for the following] [NZ/CL/PE/MY/AU/VN/BN/SG/CA/MX propose: may also exclude from patentability]: (a) plants and animals, [NZ/CL/PE/MY/AU/VN/BN/SG/CA/MX propose: other than microorganisms]; (b) [JP opposes: (b)diagnostic, therapeutic, and surgical methods for the treatment of humans or animals [US proposes; AU/SG/MY/NZ/CL/PE/VN/BN/CA/MX oppose: if they cover a method of using a machine, manufacture, or composition of matter]; [NZ/CL/PE/MY/AU/VN/BN/SG/CA/MX propose:] and

As you can see from the bracketed text, most other countries oppose the U.S. proposal. There are good reasons for doing so.

First, the U.S. proposal would raise the cost of medical care — that’s the part that eliminates arbitrage for U.S. citizens.[2] Public Citizen:

Medical procedure patents create significant transaction costs for patients . Physicians or healthcare providers could be charged additional royalties on top of the one-time cost of a medical device each time they practice a patented method. … The patenting of medical processes essentially nullifies the effect of patent exhaustion in specific instances, giving patentees rights over downstream uses of a patented medical device. Physicians , healthcare providers, or other companies, who infringe medical procedure patents may then be liable to pay high damages that are “adequate to compensate for the infringement, ” but no less than a reasonable royalty rate.

Courts often set a reasonable royalty rate based on the “percentage of infringing sales resulting from the unauthorized use of the patented invention.” In Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc. v. Globus Medical, Inc., for example, the court found defendants liable for $2,085,269.20 in damages for infringing patents on “devices a nd methods used by spinal surgeons to stabilize bony structures.” Insurance companies typically cap the amount they will reimburse on any given procedure. Price hikes resulting from medical procedure patenting are likely to be shifted onto consumers, either in the form of higher co-payments or higher insurance premiums.[3]

The additional costs that medical procedure patents impose may be no small deal for the patient. While patients are billed anywhere from $1500 to $2000 per stent used in coronary angioplasties, the actual cost of manufacturing the stent is only $15. A high-tech scan may cost a hospital “a few cents of electricity” and “a couple of hundred dollars [sic] worth of a technician’s or a doctor’s time,” but the patient is typically billed “several thousand dollars” per diagnostic procedure.

Second, most medical associations regard medical procedure patents as unethical — as indeed they are.

Under the TRIPS Agreement 1994 in the WTO, governments are allowed to refuse to grant patents that cover diagnostic, therapeutic and surgical methods for the treatment of humans or animals. This allowance under international trade law recognises that patents over medical treatment methods are an unjustifiable limitation on the freedom of physicians to treat their patients to the best of their abilities and are a risk to human health. If a patent exists over a surgical method, a physician has a choice (assuming they are even aware a patent exists over the surgical method): respect the patent and risk the health of their patient, or violate the patent and risk being sued for infringement. This is not a decision that physicians, particularly in emergency situations, should be required to make, and is an unjustifiable risk to health and undermines medical ethics.

It is no surprise then that the World Medical Association (WMA) has taken a strong position against patenting of surgical methods. In its position statement on the patenting of medical procedures, the WMA states that the patenting of medical procedures poses serious risks to the effective practice of medicine, and is unethical and contrary to the values of the medical profession.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/...+capitalism%29

My bet is that if Bishop Gecko were President, the Repug Senators who now oppose TPP (only because it Obama proposing it, not because of the TPP content) would be selling, approving TPP aggressively.

[boutons_deux]

“Wisconsin is the model”: Grover Norquist’s Tea Party scheme to crush his union enemies

“How did we do it in Wisconsin?” RNC Chair Reince Priebus asked Saturday morning. “The simplest way I can tell you is we had total and complete unity between the state party, quite frankly, Americans for Prosperity, the Tea Party groups, the Grandsons of Liberty. The [Glenn Beck-instigated] 9/12ers were involved. It was a total and complete agreement that nobody cared who got the credit, that everyone was going to run down the tracks together.”

Priebus made his comments on a Saturday morning CPAC panel addressing how conservatives could fight and defeat organized labor state by state. Moderator Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform, opened the panel by suggesting that conservatives had been neglecting the union issue in recent years out of a mistaken sense that private sector union demise was inevitable, and that public sector union decline was impossible.

Rather, argued Norquist, a raft of National Labor Relations Board appointments by Obama – who he said had made a strategic error by prioritizing Obamacare over a pro-union “card check” bill – would make this “the time for the other team to cheat” and hike private sector unionization. (Pro-labor scholars have questioned how much impact proposed rules from the NLRB, a body which lacked a quorum for some stretches of Obama’s presidency, will have on union efforts.) Meanwhile, said Norquist, Republican victories in the states offered a chance to “fix a lot of the abuses that we thought we’d have to live with” in the public sector. “Wisconsin,” Norquist later told the crowd, “is the model.”

Scott Walker’s 2011 “budget repair” law, passed amid a high-profile multi-week protest occupation of the state capitol, severely reduced the right of public employees to collectively bargain, effectively imposed public sector “Right to Work,” and required regular “re-certification” elections among employees on whether to retain their now-narrowed form of union recognition.

http://www.salon.com/2014/03/08/wisc...union_enemies/

====================

so how's WI doing under Repug political domination?

Weak economic numbers haven't affected Scott Walker's popularity

No matter how you spin them, the numbers show Wisconsin’s economy continues to sputter.

As other states are adding thousands of jobs post-recession, Wisconsin lags near the bottom on that measure and appears to be going in the wrong direction.

While the national unemployment rate has been dropping, Wisconsin’s has been going in the opposite way. All ten of the largest metro areas in the state saw an increase in their jobless rate, according to figures released this week.

Milwaukee saw its non-seasonally adjusted jobless rate in February increase to 8.4 percent, hardly a sign that happy days have returned to Wisconsin’s largest — and most important — economic center.

And the latest stats show wages and income for working people in Wisconsin are trending down, falling 4.1 percent over the past two years, worse than the nation as a whole.

But despite the disappointing economic data, Gov. Scott Walker has actually seen his job approval rating tick higher to 50 percent, according to the latest Marquette University Law School poll. That’s up from 49 percent last fall.

It’s a curious twist for a governor who made job creation and business development the centerpiece of his political agenda — and something that goes against the conventional wisdom that economic issues trump all others.

“What this tells me is that people filter the economic news through their own political lens,” says Professor Charles Franklin, who supervises the Marquette poll.

http://host.madison.com/news/local/writers/mike_ivey/weak-economic-numbers-haven-t-affected-scott-walker-s-popularity/article_b1fcc782-9d6c-11e2-a233-001a4bcf887a.html#ixzz2w9Xsl16q

Walker/Repugs have done everything to screw the 99% and enrich the 1%, but Repug voters still vote stupidly against their own interests.

[boutons_deux]

Who Controls the Kochs’ Political Network? ASMI, SLAH and TOHE

Obscure limited liability companies have ultimate say over the Koch network’s nonprofits, which spend hundreds of millions of dollars to advance conservative causes.

Libertarian billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch were among the first to grasp the political potential of social welfare groups and trade associations — nonprofits that can spend money to influence elections but don’t have to name their donors.
The Kochs and their allies have built up a complex network of such organizations, which spent more than $383 million in the run-up to the 2012 election alone.

Do ents released in recent months show the Kochs have added wrinkles to their network that even experts well versed in tax law and campaign finance say they’ve never seen before — wrinkles that could make it harder to discern who controls each nonprofit in the web and how it disperses its money.

A review of 2012 tax returns filed by Koch network groups shows that most have been set up as nonprofit trusts rather than not-for-profit corporations, an unusual step that reduces their public reporting requirements.
It sounds complicated and arcane because it is. Some of the nation’s top nonprofit experts said they could only speculate on the reasons for the network’s increasingly elaborate setup.

“My guess is that we’re looking at various forms of disguise — to disguise control, to disguise the flow of funds from one en y to another,” said Gregory Colvin, a tax lawyer and campaign-finance specialist in San Francisco who reviewed all the do ents for ProPublica.

Four other leading nonprofit experts and three conservative operatives with knowledge of the Koch network said the most likely reason that the Kochs and their inner circle are using this arrangement was to exert control over the groups without saying publicly who was in charge. In particular, they said, the Kochs likely wanted to prevent any of the groups that they help fund from going against their wishes — as happened with the Cato Ins ute, the libertarian think tank the Kochs had long supported before they got into a dispute with its president, Ed Crane.

http://www.propublica.org/article/wh...ailynewsletter

[boutons_deux]

the corporate/VRWC/ALEC War on Employees (contributes to poverty, inequality, lost employee opportunities)

The Overtime Threshold Has Eroded 57.5 Percent from its Peak Value



http://www.epi.org/publication/overt...-percent-peak/


And of course it was the Repugs in their 2004 mods to the Fair Labor Standards Act that removed $Bs from low-end employees, reclassifying them as supervisors and exempt from overtime.

[boutons_deux]

[boutons_deux]

The current Supreme Court has headed in a very scary direction.

Recently, three well-respected legal scholars examined almost 20,000 Supreme Court cases from the last 65 years. They found that the five conservative justices currently sitting on the Supreme Court are in the top 10 most pro-corporate justices in more than half a century.

And Justices Samuel Alito and John Roberts? They were number one and number two.

Take a look at the win rate of the national Chamber of Commerce cases before the Supreme Court. According to the Cons utional Accountability Center, the Chamber was winning 43% of the cases in participated in during the later years of the Burger Court, but that shifted to a 56% win-rate under the Rehnquist Court, and then a 70% win-rate with the Roberts Court.

Follow these pro-corporate trends to their logical conclusion, and pretty soon you'll have a Supreme Court that is a wholly owned subsidiary of big business.

http://elizabethwarren.com/

[boutons_deux]

Nothing Really Compares to the Koch Brothers’ Political Empire

As billionaire conservatives Charles and David Koch become a focus of Democratic Party attacks for their big spending in the 2014 elections, conservatives have argued back that the Kochs’ “dark money” is puny compared to the shadowy funds spent by an array of wealthy liberal interests and individuals.

Fingers have been pointed at labor unions, billionaire investor George Soros, billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer and the Tides Foundation as the supposed liberal counterparts to the Kochs.But the numbers just don’t add up. And these progressive groups tend to operate in the sunshine of public disclosure, unlike the Kochs’ semi-secret political empire.

Let’s start with the misunderstanding — or the deliberate expansion — of the term “dark money.”

Coined in October 2010 by Bill Allison, editorial director at the Sunlight Foundation, “dark money” was meant to describe the funds spent on elections and election-related issue ads by political nonprofits that are not required to disclose the names of their donors. This money skyrocketed following the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision.
The term “dark money” does not apply to every nonprofit that does not disclose its donors — not even to every nondisclosing nonprofit with political goals, broadly speaking, on the left or the right.

The term “dark money” does not apply, however, to every nonprofit that does not disclose its donors — not even to every nondisclosing nonprofit with political goals, broadly speaking, on the left or the right.

“Cato [Ins ute], Heritage [Foundation] and Center for American Progress aren’t dark money groups, and neither is the March of Dimes, which also does not disclose donors,” Allison said via email.

“I think of Dark Money as the money from undisclosed donors spent to influence the outcome of an election.”

What kinds of nonprofits does the term cover? Mainly, “social welfare” nonprofits (organized under section 501(c)(4) of the tax code) and trade associations (organized under section 501(c)(6)), when they spend money to influence electoral outcomes. It can also cover s corporations that spend on elections and have no other apparent purpose.
Those not included under the “dark money” moniker: public interest nonprofits (organized under section 501(c)(3)), which may be involved in shaping policy but are forbidden to engage in electoral activity and labor unions (organized under section 501(c)(5)), which can participate in elections but must disclose their donors to the Labor Department.

The Koch brothers run most of their political empire through a network of 501(c)(4) and 501(c)(6) nonprofits, the majority of which spend money directly on elections or fund those that do.In total, the Koch political empire marshaled $400 million in the 2012 election cycle toward groups and efforts that spent money directly in the electoral arena. Not every group that received money from the empire reported spending on elections, but the vast majority of that money went to groups that spent tens of millions on electoral ads — which must be reported to the Federal Election Commission — and even more on issue ads that targeted candidates but didn’t advocate their electoral victory or defeat — which is not reported. Koch players included Americans for Prosperity, the American Future Fund and the 60 Plus Association.

Already, Koch-linked dark money groups have spent more than $30 million on ads targeting vulnerable Democratic congressional candidates running in the 2014 midterms.
It is the electoral focus of the Koch nonprofits and their sophisticated efforts to shield donors’ iden ies – plus the vast sums of money they move — that has brought them the unwanted attention of both Democratic Senate leadership and reporters.

There exists no outside network or organization supporting Democratic Party candidates in elections, while not disclosing its donors, that spends money in comparable amounts.

Take the Tides Foundation, a longstanding liberal donor fund that provides money to nonprofits working on the environment, labor issues, immigrant rights, gay rights, women’s rights and human rights. Conservative blogs blasted the foundation as far more influential than the Koch brothers as early as 2011.

But according to tax records accessed through CitizenAudit.org, the Tides Foundation allocates little of its money to groups that engage in FEC-reportable spending on elections. Tides gave just $3.1 million of its $136 million in 2011-2012 grants to 501(c)(4) nonprofits that are permitted to engage part-time in politics. An even smaller sum went to such groups that actually reported election spending — i.e., dark money groups.

Some of those recipient groups reported spending large sums on elections, but they received very little of that from Tides: The League of Conservation Voters, which spent $11.2 million on elections, received just $150,000 from Tides. The Michigan League of Conservation Voters spent $860,237 but received only $15,000. Planned Parenthood spent $6.7 million and received $110,000. And VoteVets.org spent $3.2 million and received $82,500.

The Advocacy Fund, a former Tides organization that is still run out of the same office, gave more to 501(c)(4) nonprofits in the last election cycle: $11.5 million. But only $5.7 million went to those dark money groups that actually spent money on the elections. Recipients that engaged in electoral spending included America Votes ($1.8 million from the Advocacy Fund), the Campaign for Community Change ($1.3 million), the League of Conservation Voters ($2 million), the National Wildlife Federation Action Fund ($125,000), the NRDC Action Fund ($80,000) and the Sierra Club ($278,000).

So if the Tides Foundation is supposed to be the liberal equivalent of the Kochs, it’s a pale shadow of the conservative juggernaut. Combined, the money from Tides and the Advocacy Fund falls well short of the amounts amassed by the Koch operation.

Another favorite target of conservative comparison making is George Soros, who is indeed a major progressive political donor and operates a large network of nonprofit funds to push his vision of an “open society.” This network holds assets in the billions of dollars.

But again, the Soros foundations direct only a tiny fraction of their funds to groups spending money to directly influence elections. The Open Society Policy Center and the Fund for Policy Reform, the main Soros groups donating to 501(c)(4) nonprofits, gave $12.9 million to those nonprofits in the 2012 cycle, of which just $1 million went to the subset that spent money in elections. Soros himself has publicly stated his opposition to funding attack ads.

In addition, Soros was personally a major donor to Democratic super PACs in the last election, including $1 million to American Bridge 21st Century, $1 million to Priorities USA Action, $675,000 to House Majority PAC and $100,000 to Senate Majority PAC. He has also donated $25,000 to the Ready for Hillary PAC. But unlike whatever funds the Koch brothers pour into their political empire, the Soros donations to super PACs are not “dark,” for they are all disclosed to the FEC in publicly accessible records.

As for Tom Steyer, the former hedge fund investor turned super-environmentalist, the majority of his spending this election cycle has gone through a super PAC, which discloses its donors — or in Steyer’s case, its donor.

Other liberal donor funds — including the Atlantic Advocacy Fund, the Green Tech Action Fund and the Public Interest Projects Action Fund — donated approximately $35 million to 501(c)(4) nonprofits during the 2012 election. But only 19 percent of that went to groups that actually spent money on elections.

As for Tom Steyer, the former hedge fund investor turned super-environmentalist, the majority of his spending this election cycle has gone through a super PAC, which discloses its donors — or in Steyer’s case, its donor. So far, his CE Action Committee has spent more than $1 million to help Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) secure victory in a 2013 special election and more than $8 million to help Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe (D) win his race.

Steyer has declared that he intends to spend up to $100 million in the 2014 elections. Although that would no doubt make him the largest political donor among those backing Democratic candidates, it remains to be seen whether he will follow through. The Los Angeles Times said as much when it wrote that Steyer “may” be the liberal answer to the Kochs.

In the meantime, the Kochs’ dark money empire is not merely a future threat or a possible hope. It is a reality, controlled by two billionaires who chose to operate, as much as they can, in the political shadows.

http://billmoyers.com/2014/04/10/not...itical-empire/

[boutons_deux]

What Do the Koch Brothers Really Want?

Here are just a few excerpts of the Libertarian Party platform that David Koch ran on in 1980:


“We urge the repeal of federal campaign finance laws, and the immediate abolition of the despotic Federal Election Commission.”


“We favor the abolition of Medicare and Medicaid programs.”


“We oppose any compulsory insurance or tax-supported plan to provide health services, including those which finance abortion services.”


“We also favor the deregulation of the medical insurance industry.”


“We favor the repeal of the fraudulent, virtually bankrupt, and increasingly oppressive Social Security system. Pending that repeal, participation in Social Security should be made voluntary.”


“We propose the abolition of the governmental Postal Service. The present system, in addition to being inefficient, encourages governmental surveillance of private correspondence. Pending abolition, we call for an end to the monopoly system and for allowing free compe ion in all aspects of postal service.”


“We oppose all personal and corporate income taxation, including capital gains taxes.”


“We support the eventual repeal of all taxation.”


“As an interim measure, all criminal and civil sanctions against tax evasion should be terminated immediately.”


“We support repeal of all law which impede the ability of any person to find employment, such as minimum wage laws.”


“We advocate the complete separation of education and State. Government schools lead to the indoctrination of children and interfere with the free choice of individuals. Government ownership, operation, regulation, and subsidy of schools and colleges should be ended.”


“We condemn compulsory education laws … and we call for the immediate repeal of such laws.”


“We support the repeal of all taxes on the income or property of private schools, whether profit or non-profit.”


“We support the abolition of the Environmental Protection Agency.”


“We support abolition of the Department of Energy.”


“We call for the dissolution of all government agencies concerned with transportation, including the Department of Transportation.”


“We demand the return of America's railroad system to private ownership. We call for the privatization of the public roads and national highway system.”


“We specifically oppose laws requiring an individual to buy or use so-called "self-protection" equipment such as safety belts, air bags, or crash helmets.”


“We advocate the abolition of the Federal Aviation Administration.”


“We advocate the abolition of the Food and Drug Administration.”


“We support an end to all subsidies for child-bearing built into our present laws, including all welfare plans and the provision of tax-supported services for children.”


“We oppose all government welfare, relief projects, and ‘aid to the poor’ programs. All these government programs are privacy-invading, paternalistic, demeaning, and inefficient. The proper source of help for such persons is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals.”


“We call for the privatization of the inland waterways, and of the distribution system that brings water to industry, agriculture and households.”


“We call for the repeal of the Occupational Safety and Health Act.”


“We call for the abolition of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.”


“We support the repeal of all state usury laws.”


In other words, the agenda of the Koch brothers is not only to defund Obamacare.

The agenda of the Koch brothers is to repeal every major piece of legislation that has been signed into law over the past 80 years that has protected the middle class, the elderly, the children, the sick, and the most vulnerable in this country.

It is clear that the Koch brothers and other right wing billionaires are calling the shots and are pulling the strings of the Republican Party.

http://readersupportednews.org/opini...rs-really-want

[boutons_deux]

ALEC news

Why 5 Utilities Quietly Dumped ALEC and Others Won’t Even Speak of the Lobbying Group

Greenpeace has directly confirmed at least five large U.S. utility companies have ceased supporting the secretive lobbying group in recent years:

• MidAmerian Energy Holdings Company (MEHC)
• PacifiCorp—a MEHC subsidiary with distinct ALEC membership as of 2011
• NV Energy—now a MEHC subsidiary with distinct ALEC membership as of 2011
• Alliant Energy
• PG&E

Independent of ALEC, some of these companies continue to resist commonsense clean energy incentives, such as net metering for distributed solar generation. The democratization of electricity production poses a serious threat to monopolistic utility companies, and rather than working to innovate during this massive shift in the energy economy, many utilities are digging in their heels. In the long run, that will not likely turn out to be a wise choice; even King Coal’s top lobbyists admits that the industry is outdated, comparing coal’s latest pollution control technology to the irrelevant “bag phone” technology of yesteryear.

Four utilities refused to respond to Greenpeace after over two months of repeated outreach through phone, email and fax, indicating how toxic ALEC’s brand is even to some of the nation’s polluters:

• Dominion Resources in Richmond, VA
• Ameren in St. Louis, MO
• NiSource in Merrillville, IN
• Arizona Public Service (and holding company Pinnacle West Capital) in Phoenix, AZ

http://ecowatch.com/2014/05/01/utili...obbying-group/

Note that Arizona "Public" Service utility is actually owned by a wealth-sucking holding group, aka "Arizona Capital Service" racket, which certainly behind APS's laying taxes on solar panel users.

[boutons_deux]

Who Is Behind the National Right to Work Committee and its Anti-Union Crusade?

As the U.S. Supreme Court's 2014 session comes to a close, one of the major cases left for a decision is Harris vs. Quinn,which could effect some 7 million public sector workers in the United States.
The case originates in Illinois, where home health care workers have been successfully organized by public sector unions. Now, a small group of these workers, represented by lawyers from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, have sued and their lawyers contend that the agency fees, or the fair share dues that even non-union members of a bargaining unit are required to pay to unions that bargain for higher wages on their behalf, violate the First Amendment. Agency fees are barred in so-called "right to work" states, which have much less unionization and lower wages and benefits.

Joel Rogers, a professor of law and sociology at the University of Wisconsin, calls it "the most important labor law case the court has considered in decades." This is because when the Supreme Court decided to take on the case, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation dramatically expanded the scope of the case beyond the home health care workers to include all public sector workers, from teachers and firefighters to sanitation workers to librarians. If the court follows National Right to Work's lead, every state in the country would essentially turn into an anti-union "right to work" state, which would be a significant blow to public sector unions' collective bargaining efforts and also complicate thousands of existing contracts between organized workers and municipalities, cities, counties, and states across the country.




Founded nearly 60 years ago, the NRTWC has been a national leader in the effort to destroy public and private sector unions. The groups have increased their funding and staffing in recent years. In 2012, the three groups combined reported over $25 million in revenue, making them a powerful instrument of the corporate and ideological interests that want to keep wages low and silence the voice of organized labor in the political arena.

NRTWC's success and the demise of unions in the United States has directly contributed to the erosion of high-paying middle class jobs and to growing inequality, as this chart from theEconomic Policy Ins ute graphically illustrates.

National Right to Work's Deep Connections to the Koch Brothers and the John Birch Society

The NRTWC has deep connections within the national right-wing network led by the Koch brothers. Reed Larson, who led the NRTW groups for over three decades, hails from Wichita, Kansas, the hometown of Charles and David Koch. Larson became an early leader of the radical right-wing John Birch Society in Kansas, which Fred Koch (the father of Charles and David) helped found. Several other founders and early leaders of the NRTWC were members and leaders of the John Birch Society, specifically the Wichita chapter of which Fred Koch was an active member.

The groups remain tied to the Kochs. In 2012, the Kochs' Freedom Partners group funneled $1 million to the National Right to Work Committee, while the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation gave a $15,000 grant to the NRTWLDF, which has also received significant funding from the Koch-connected DonorsTrust and Donors Capital Fund. Today, at least three former Koch associates work as attorneys for the NRTWLDF.

In June 2010, Mark Mix, the current head of the NRTW groups, attended the Kochs' exclusiveAspen strategy meeting to give a presentation on how to mobilize conservatives for the 2010 election, along with representatives from Koch-backed groups such as the Center to Protect Patient Rights (now called American Encore) and Americans for Prosperity.

In addition to the Koch brothers, the NRTWLDF has received significant funding from many big name conservative donors, including the Walton Family Foundation (of Walmart), the Coors family's Castle Rock Foundation, Wisconsin's Bradley Foundation, the John M. Olin Foundation, and the Searle Freedom Trust.

A $33 Million Anti-Worker Lobby Shop with Ties to ALEC, SPN, and More

In order to push their extreme agenda, the NRTWC has launched a massive lobbying effort at both the state and federal level. In the U.S. Congress alone, the NRTWC has spent over $33 million on lobbying between 1999 and 2013. NRTWC has lobbied Congress to pass a national "Right to Work Act," which is sponsored by Senator Rand Paul (R-KY). Paul has lent his name to several NRTWC advocacy and fundraising letters and received over $27,000 in campaign contributions from the NRTWC’s federal political action committee. The NRTWC also strongly opposed the Employee Free Choice Act, which would have made it easier for workers to organize, while supported legislation that would weaken the regulatory authority of the National Labor Relations Board over employers.

The NRTWC also does extensive lobbying on the state level. In 2012, lobbyists registered with the NRTWC were on the ground in Indiana and Michigan when both states passed anti-union "right to work" bills and are big supporters of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker and his efforts to crush public sector unions. The NRTWC was an exhibitor at the 2011 annual conference of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the corporate bill millexposed by CMD in 2011. ALEC's "Right to Work Act," which has been in the ALEC library since at least 1980, is one of its most commonly used "model" bills. When Republicans took trifecta control of 26 state houses in November of 2010, it was a top agenda item at theDecember 2010 ALEC meeting. According to a 2010 email from ALEC to Wisconsin legislators that CMD obtained, ALEC referred to its "Right to Work Act" as a "solution… for your state's most pressing issues." Currently 24 states are so-called "right to work" states. In 2013, 15 states introduced legislation based on ALEC's "Right to Work Act."

The NRTWLDF is also an associate member of the State Policy Network (SPN), an $84 million dollar network of 64 state-based "think tanks." The State Policy Network's affiliate in Michigan, the Mackinac Center, was one of the major supporters behind "right to work" when the legislature passed the bill in 2012. Through its board, staff, and other activities, the NRTW groups also have close connections to Americans for Prosperity, the Cato Ins ute, theAmerican Conservative Union, and the Republican National Committee.

Professor Rogers and other labor experts contend that the NRTWC's success in the U.S. Supreme Court "would be a disaster for labor, particularly for the public sector unions that traditionally rely more heavily on agency shop agreements." As Rogers points out, it is technically possible to form a union in a "right to work" state, but when union members are free to stop paying their dues, the union becomes a weak and ineffective organization. The results for American workers are clear. Research shows that "right to work" states have lower wages, less health care and more poverty.

https://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/06/04-6

My safe bet is that the extreme right-wing Repug SCOTUS5 will vote in favor of National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation/VRWC screwing unions and workers.

[boutons_deux]

Kock Bros, CEO of America, buy another

Republican Senate Candidate Signs Koch Pledge, Abruptly Changes His Tune On Climate Change





He’s the only Republican running for Senate who mentions climate change on his website. He used to support a carbon tax, and actually talks about conservative climate change solutions. Then, Jim Rubens signed the Koch brothers’ pledge not to do anything about it.

The pledge, from the Koch-backed organization Americans For Prosperity (AFP), requires signers to “oppose any legislation relating to climate change that includes a net increase in government revenue.” That rules out a carbon tax, a policy that would make huge carbon cuts, create jobs, raise incomes, and improve the health of Americans. It’s also one of the few policies Congress could use to seriously fight climate change.

An American University report, released in July, identified the Kochs’ influence and the AFP pledge as instrumental in stopping members of Congress from voting for climate action. That’s why the Obama administration has had to cut carbon using the EPA’s authority to regulate pollutants. And AFP is only one of at least “91 think tanks, advocacy groups, and industry associations, funded by 140 different foundations, that work to oppose action on climate change.”

It’s a major change for a candidate who not only believes in human-caused global warming, but who said voters use that belief “as a proxy for candidate credibility on other issues.” Deny climate change, he’s saying, and Republicans will lose elections.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...te+Progress%29

Plenty of unpaid? AGW-denying s right here in ST.

[boutons_deux]

the corporatocracy/United Corporations of America continues to increase its control of govt and the country

The Chamber Of Commerce Won More Than Two-Thirds Of Its Supreme Court Cases This Term

Big business wasn’t the public focus of this year’s just-completed U.S. Supreme Court term. But the corporate lobby’s number one representative nonetheless retained the outsized influence on U.S. jurisprudence that has come to characterize the Roberts Court, winningmore than two-thirds of its cases even by conservative estimates.

The Chamber of Commerce won 11 of the 16 cases in which it filed briefs, according to data compiled by the Cons utional Accountability Center (CAC). This 69 percent win rate marks the continued success of the lobbying shop that dubs itself the world’s largest business organization in shifting Supreme Court precedent to increasingly favor big business.

Factoring in this term, the Chamber of Commerce has enjoyed an overall 70 percent win rate since the court has been led by Chief Justice John G. Roberts — by far the highest win rate in modern history. During the years when the court was led by the last chief, Justice William Rehnquist, the Chamber’s win rate was 56 percent, and under the chief before that, Warren Burger, its win rate was just 43 percent:

The Chamber’s success this year demonstrates its continued dominance, after several years in which the U.S. Supreme Court has sided with the Chamber of Commerce at a rate of 80 percent. Major cases during this period include Citizens United (this year’s sequel doubled down on that ruling, although the case concerned wealthy individuals rather than their businesses), a string of decisions eroding the mechanisms for holding corporations accountable as a class, and Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, which shredded accountability for human rights abuses abroad, including those by corporations with some U.S. presence.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...ses-this-term/

USCoC, Alec, Kock Bros, "Christian" Taleban, financial sector, etc. America is so ed and un able.

meanwhile, the youth unemployment rate (16 - 25) is an official 14% millions more not lookng, and MIC is jockeying to win the contract for $100Bs for nuclear-capable next generation stealth bomber, while its $1T+ F-35 sucks.

[boutons_deux]

Fossil Fuel-Funded Groups Organizing Public Rallies Against New EPA Climate Rule

Starting Tuesday, anyone who objects to new proposed federal regulations to cut carbon emissions from power plants can make their complaints public — and opponents of the rules are lining up to take a shot.

A number of right-wing groups that receive funding from the fossil fuel industry and the Koch Brothers — the American Legislative Exchange Council, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and Americans for Prosperity (AFP) among others — have vociferouslyopposed the carbon regulations from the beginning. They’ll be bringing in supporters to both speak at the hearings and to attend various rallies scheduled to coincide with the hearings in each city. AFP in particular is planning rallies at the hearings in Atlanta,Denver, and Pittsburgh to oppose the new rules and to “educate media and rally goers about the harmful impacts on job creation and energy costs.”

“We also saw earlier this year, when the [Senate's] Environment and Public Works committee had the four former Republican EPA administrators testify in favor of the climate rules,” said Dave Willett, a spokesperson for the League of Conservation Voters. “The room was full of miners that had been brought in.”

And while the AFP rallies tend to tonally focus on the interests of industry, the Pennsylvania Chamber of Commerce and several other coal groups have a rally planned in Pittsburgh to focus more on workers who oppose EPA’s rules. “We’re expecting quite a big turnout from folks there,” Willett continued. “They’re having a raffle for a chance to meet Dale Earnhart Jr.”

However, between the low projected costs of the regulations and their market-friendly design, the efforts EPA went to in designing the regulations to accommodate coal-dependent states and give them options, the fact that such projections tend to be too pessimistic, and that they ignore the counteracting economic benefits of cutting emissions, it’s unlikely EPA’s new rules will actually harm the economy or jobs.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...ublic-rallies/

the EPA didn't cause this:




https://www.kftc.org/campaigns/appal...loyment-trends

Were these BigCarbon s protesting as 50% of their jobs were destroyed by BigCoal itself?

[boutons_deux]

VRWC/Corporatocarcy in Action

Human-Americans excluded, screwed, along with the environment


Legislators, Corporations Gather For Secret Meeting Against Clean Energy And You’re Not Invited

Going into their annual meeting in Dallas, Texas on Wednesday, ALEC — the secretive organization that brings together conservative politicians and major corporate interests — is looking to recalibrate their approach to repealing or obstructing a range of clean energy initiatives after a year of state-level defeats. The 40-year-old group, which has been pushing a corporate-backed, free market-driven agenda for decades, is beholden to a number of utilities and fossil fuel companies that bankroll them and they are expected to show results. At the same time, with renewable energy gaining momentum across the country and homeowners increasingly eager to get in on the rapid growth and falling prices, ALEC risks alienating itself from the public yet again.

Dale Eisman, director of communications at Common Cause, a non-profit working towards government accountability, told ThinkProgress that his organization takes specific issue with how ALEC crafts their legislation at meetings like the upcoming one.

“The secrecy of it through closed meetings, they are masquerading as a charity while operating as a lobby,” said Eisman. “Whatever t he issue — labor, schools, climate, or energy — they are drafting bills to advance corporate interests that don’t necessarily coincide with the public interest.”

This past year ALEC’s influence contributed to the ongoing battles between solar customers and utilities in Arizona and a Kansas Republican lawmaker’s ostracization from the state Chamber of Commerce after he refused to support an ALEC-backed measure designed to weaken Kansas’s successful renewable energy standard. ALEC, which does not publish a full list of all dues-paying members, includes some 2,000 state legislators, corporate executives, and lobbyists. Many of the state legislators have gone on to become members of Congress.


It is well-do ented that most of ALEC’s revenue comes from corporations and corporate foundations, including those associated with petrochemical billionaires Charles and David Koch, rather than legislative dues. An analysis by the Energy & Policy Ins ute found that between 1998 and 2012 ALEC’s membership fees totaled just over $1 million while gifts, grants, and contributions were just over $78 million. ALEC received $500,000 in funding from various Koch foundations from 2005-2011 and $1.4 million from ExxonMobil this past decade.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...nergy-climate/

[boutons_deux]

Utility Trade Group Funds ALEC Attack on Americans Using Solar

As the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) prepares to meet in Dallas this week, the Center for Media and Democracy has uncovered new evidence that Edison Electric Ins ute (EEI) -- the trade association for the U.S. utility industry -- has been funding ALEC's legislative assault on solar energy.

Although ALEC recently proclaimed that it was being falsely portrayed as "anti-clean energy," these latest revelations confirm that ALEC continues to pursue a polluters' wish list, despite its PR pronouncements.

"Solar Is Dumb," says ALEC Legislator

As do ented by Suzanne Goldenberg and Ed Pilkington in The Guardian late last year, ALEC has been peddling legislation designed to increase costs for Americans who have invested in solar panels for their homes and businesses, which ALEC's rep attempted to label as “freeriders.” Through ALEC's bill and campaign, the group has been pushing changes to state laws that would increase costs for homeowners with solar who sell excess energy back to the grid, known as “net metering.”

The CMD do ents underscore what Gabe Elsner of the Energy & Policy Ins ute has uncovered, which is that EEI is a prime player in ALEC -- footing the bill and calling the shots on the anti-renewable agenda. This shows that some powerful utilities -- which include public and private en ies -- are backing ALEC's extreme agenda, not just global coal and oil corporations.

At the ALEC “Spring Task Force Summit,” held in Kansas City, Missouri, in May, legislators and lobbyists sat down together to eat lunch and hear about the threat of solar.

As reported previously by Wisconsin state Rep. Chris Taylor -- a Democrat who has written about ALEC's extreme agenda -- during the sponsored ALEC lunch, “legislators from Utah and Oklahoma bragged about slowing the development of solar energy in their states.” She noted that Minnesota state Rep. Pat Garofalo, a Republican, actually told the room “solar is dumb.”

Now it is known that, according to emails recently obtained by CMD through open records requests, the legislators’ lunch for the anti-solar agenda was sponsored by EEI.

ALEC offers a range of sponsorship options for its corporate clients and funders. An ALEC do ent obtained by CMD, lists the 2013 price for a policy workshop during an ALEC conference at $25,000 - $40,000. No price was listed for a session at which participants would also receive lunch, although presumably a lunch workshop's cost could be even higher. It is a small price to pay, however, to capture an audience of legislators from across the country along with food and drink.

According to Elsner, who works for a Washington D.C.-based think tank that conducts research on fossil fuel industry lobbyists, EEI also helped develop the ALEC model legislation on net metering.

Captured on video by Elsner, Rick Tempchin -- Executive Director, Retail Energy Services, at the Edison Electric Ins ute (EEI) -- confirmed that they worked with ALEC to develop the “model” legislation, which was formally adopted by ALEC in January 2014.

"EEI and its member companies join ALEC to advance an agenda that protects the utility industry’s profits at the expense of ratepayers,” Elsner told CMD.

“That’s why EEI funds ALEC. The growth of cheap clean energy is a threat to the utility industry’s bottom line, and ALEC is a useful tool to lobby state legislators for special interests trying to squash the clean energy market.”

EEI ignored repeated requests for comment.

Solar Success Threatens Big Polluters

The U.S. solar industry is booming, with a 60% increase in-home solar installations in 2013, resulting in reductions in carbon pollution, and a large number of well-paying solar-installation jobs.

Business Insider recently reported there are now more people employed in the solar sector in the U.S. than there are coal miners.

This growing solar market represents a threat to the long-held monopoly on electricity production held by utilities. EEI represents companies that generate seventy percent of the electricity in the United States, with thirty-seven percent of the total generated from burning coal and thirty percent from "natural gas," which is predominantly methane -- a"potent" carbon in terms of its effect on warming temperatures.

In addition to its anti-solar work to help charge solar customers more, ALEC has also been attempting to weaken or fully repeal so-called “Renewable Portfolio Standards” – which are state laws that require utilities to provide a certain percentage of electricity from renewable sources at some set point in the future. ALEC's bill adopts the Koch "freedom" frame for public policy by calling this legislative agenda the “Electricity Freedom Act,” although it would greatly undermine state efforts to free Americans from over-dependence on fossil fuels that are contributing to the climate and ocean changes underway.

ALEC's task force on this issue was previously led by staffer Todd Wynn, who is now at EEI and who echoed the Charles Koch playbook in claiming that state efforts to decrease reliance on fossil fuels and increase the use of cleaner energy was supposedly a "crony capitalist" policy.

The language for the Electricity Freedom Act was brought to ALEC by the Heartland Ins ute, an Illinois-based operation that itself receives funding from the fossil fuel industry, and is probably best known for its extremism in comparing people who believe in climate change to the Unabomber Ted Kaczynski.

One of Heartland's key spokespeople peddling its effort to derail initiatives to address climate change, James Taylor, was recently discredited in the landmark Showtime series "Years of Living Dangerously." Taylor claimed to interviewer America Ferrera that he was a scientist because he had taken some science classes in college. As Connor Gibson of Greenpeace noted, by the Heartland definition almost everyone is a scientist. (CMD'sresearch and its Executive Director, Lisa Graves, was featured in the film along with the investigations of Brendan DeMille of DeSmog blog.)

On the Agenda in Dallas: “How to Think and Talk About Climate and Energy Issues”

ALEC is also working to derail proposed EPA rules to limit carbon pollution from coal plants.

Do ents obtained by CMD, and first reported by Suzanne Goldenberg of The Guardian in May, show that ALEC has conducted monthly conference calls with lobbyists and legislators, encouraging lawmakers to activate their state’s Attorney General to litigate the proposed standards.

It has also been promoting a number of bills over the past 12 months on this subject, and ALEC will consider a new proposed bill at its Dallas conference this week led“Resolution Concerning EPA’s Proposed Guidelines for Existing Fossil Fuel-Fired Power Plants" and ALEC is providing political messaging to its legislative members in a new session called “How to Think and Talk About Climate and Energy Issues.”

In addition to financial support from EEI, ALEC also receives funding from the coal giantPeabody Energy, ExxonMobil, S , BP, Koch Industries and other fossil fuel companies. The corporate co-chair of ALEC’s Energy, Environment and Agriculture task force, which helps set the agenda for the task force, is Paul Loeffelman, a lobbyist with American Electric Power (AEP) which is a member of EEI. AEP generates sixty percent of its electricity from burning coal.

The co-leader of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, Rep. Raul Grijalva, has called on the Interior Department to investigate the influence of AEP and other corporations on these policies.

"No Comment"


CMD asked ALEC to comment on what EEI received in return for its cash, but ALEC’s Senior Director, Communications and Public Affairs, Wilhelm Meierling refused to answer questions about EEI’s funding, beyond confirming that they are a member.

In a statement, Meierling told CMD: “All work conducted at ALEC is led by out (sic) public sector members and any resulting resolutions are approved by the board of directors, comprised solely of legislators.”

Stung by criticism that ALEC resembled a "pay to play" operation, ALEC has attempted to re-brand itself as a "legislator-driven organization,” publicly announcing a new rule that only legislators can propose ALEC “model” bills. However, corporate lobbyists and politicians vote as equals on those bills at ALEC task forces where, as Dana Milbank colorfully noted, the press is barred despite ALEC's PR claims.

Additionally, CMD subsequently uncovered do ents showing how lobbyists distribute bills to ALEC legislators in advance and provide a detailed script so legislators could advocate the legislation at ALEC as if it were their own ideas.

Although ALEC has removed its "Top 10 Myths About Global Warming" from its site as part of its public relations remake, ALEC's prior sessions have included climate change denialist propaganda such as "Warming up to Climate Change," as reported by then-Wisconsin state Rep. Mark Pocan, who now serves in Congress. He observed that session and wrote for The Progressive how ALEC lawmakers lapped up claims that increased carbon dioxide is good for you.

Just last year, ALEC featured a weather personality who claimed that the planet was getting colder, despite the severe melting of ice in polar regions, where fossil fuel companies are expanding their investments.

It remains to be seen what messages ALEC politicians will be told they should echo at this year's conference.

http://www.commondreams.org/views/20...ns-using-solar

[boutons_deux]

Here's one of the more secret paths for corporate conspirators to attack regulations, reducing, even defeating, the laws passed by Congress

Lobbyists bidding to block government regs set sights on secretive White House office

In early 2011, after years of study, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration moved to reduce the permissible levels of silica dust wafted into the air by industrial processes like fracking, mining, or cement manufacturing. The move came after years of public comment and hearings, and reflected emerging science about the dangers posed by even low levels of dust. OSHA predicted the rule would save 700 lives annually and prevent 1,600 new cases of silicosis, an incurable, life-threatening disease.

The proposal stirred fierce opposition from an array of industries, which argued that the costs of reducing silica levels far outweighed the potential benefits. When OSHA pushed ahead, the lobbyists took their arguments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, a division of the Office of Management and Budget. Few people have ever heard of OIRA even though it is part of the White House and has broad authority to delay or suggest changes in any draft regulation.

OIRA’s deliberations on the silica rule began in February 2011, and lasted two and a half years. During that time, records show, its officials held nine meetings with lobbyists and lawyers for the affected industries, but sat down only once with unions and once with health advocates.

Last August, the office sent a revised version of the rule back to OSHA; the worker protection agency has yet to act.

Labor advocates noted that the lengthy delay appeased House Republicans and pushed a decision opposed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce out of the 2012 presidential campaign. “During that delay thousands of workers were further exposed to silica,” said Peg Seminario, director of safety and health at the AFL-CIO. “People have gotten sicker and some will die because of the exposures that have continued to take place.”

What happened to the silica rule is no isolated example. A series of executive orders over the past three decades have given OIRA significant authority to reassess rules on every imaginable subject, from healthcare to the environment to transportation. The office shares early drafts of rules with the president’s top advisers as well as other Cabinet-level agencies that might object.

Although some on OIRA’s team have degrees in science and engineering, former officials say its leadership and staff are largely drawn from the realms of economics, law, and public policy.

Regardless, the office does not hesitate to rework agency rules that were years in the making and backed by peer-reviewed science. Often, OIRA officials make a proposed rule appear too costly by revising the calculation of benefits downward. As it did with the silica limits, the office can also prolong the process, holding regulations in limbo for months and sometimes years.

http://grist.org/climate-energy/lobbyists-bidding-to-block-government-regs-set-sights-on-secretive-white-house-office/?utm_source=syndication&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaig n=feed