Is Hillary waiting to see if she can lock up the nomination before being honest with American voters?
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton defended her paid speeches to Wall Street, saying in an interview that aired on Friday that they would not soften her campaign pledges for tougher regulation.
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton defended her paid speeches to Wall Street, saying in an interview that aired on Friday that they would not soften her campaign pledges for tougher regulation.
The former U.S. Senator from New York and secretary of state is under pressure from rival candidate Bernie Sanders, who has made her Wall Street ties a top campaign issue and called for her to release transcripts of her remarks. Clinton was reportedly paid millions in appearance fees after leaving the State Department.
Asked whether she could assure U.S. voters that the speeches would not undermine her calls to rein in the financial industry, Clinton told MSNBC: “Absolutely.”
Monday, February 29, 2016
WHY BERNIE LOST IN S. CAROLINA; LVT!
LOW VOTER TURNOUT! (LVT)
87% of registered voters in S. Carolina stayed away from the polls.
Around 370,000 votes were cast in the South Carolina Democratic primary, amounting to just over 12 percent of the overall vote. Of those votes, Sanders claimed around 100,000 while Clinton netted nearly three times more. Some of the least populated counties saw the best turnouts, though not a single county had more than a third of their registered voters hand in ballots. In Greenville County, the most populous in South Carolina, a paltry 10.35 percent of voters participated in the primary on Saturday.
Regardless of abysmal voter turnout, both candidates earned delegates. 53 delegates were up for grabs. Clinton got 39 while Sanders earned 14. Neither amount is enough to decisively confirm a Democratic presidential nominee, though Clinton's ever-widening lead has become all the more apparent. Sanders made it abundantly clear that he's focused on Super Tuesday and winning as many states as he can in the major election season event.
SC - Election Results
Around 370,000 votes were cast in the South Carolina Democratic primary, amounting to just over 12 percent of the overall vote. Of those votes, Sanders claimed around 100,000 while Clinton netted nearly three times more. Some of the least populated counties saw the best turnouts, though not a single county had more than a third of their registered voters hand in ballots. In Greenville County, the most populous in South Carolina, a paltry 10.35 percent of voters participated in the primary on Saturday.
Regardless of abysmal voter turnout, both candidates earned delegates. 53 delegates were up for grabs. Clinton got 39 while Sanders earned 14. Neither amount is enough to decisively confirm a Democratic presidential nominee, though Clinton's ever-widening lead has become all the more apparent. Sanders made it abundantly clear that he's focused on Super Tuesday and winning as many states as he can in the major election season event.
SC - Election Results
| 2,961,362 | |
| 370,719 | |
| 12.52 % |
IS HILLARY A PAPER TIGER?
Hillary appears to be a strong candidate, but that's only if you look at her through the rosy colored glasses handed out by the Democratic Establishment.
A look at the Big Picture (the general election) reveals something much different.
The case against Hillary Clinton: This is the disaster Democrats must avoid - Salon.com
Contrary to conventional pundit wisdom, Hillary is not the stronger general-election candidate.
So far Clinton seems to have retained the status of favorite for the Democratic nomination. But there are strong signs that it’s Sanders who would fare better against the eventual GOP nominee.
Recent polling shows Sanders doing better than Clinton against each of the Republican contenders. One can question the relevance of early-stage match ups such as these, but as Princeton’s Matt Karp recently noted in his eye-opening piece on Sanders and Clinton’s comparative electability:
We may be skeptical about the predictive power of these findings, nine months before Election Day. But it’s wrong to call them “absolutely worthless” … In a comprehensive analysis of elections between 1952 and 2008, Robert Erikson and Christopher Wleizen found that matchup polls as early as April have generally produced results close to the outcome in November.
Even much earlier “trial heats” seem to be far from meaningless. As partisan polarization has increased over the last three decades, there’s some evidence that early polling has become more predictive than ever. In all five elections since 1996, February matchup polls yielded average results within two points of the final outcome.
Still skeptical? Consider the candidates’ favorability ratings: Sanders is the only one of the leading candidates—from either party—with a greater favorable than unfavorable rating. Hillary’s 53-percent unfavorable rating would, as Karp noted, “make her the most disliked presidential nominee in modern history.” (See all of the candidates’ ratings here.)
A look at party identification is also revealing: Independents now vastly outnumber Democrats or Republicans, and among independents, Sanders is far and away the favorite. Meanwhile, as statistician Joshua Loftus notes: “Dangerously, even Donald Trump and Ted Cruz get a much greater proportion of independent voters than Clinton.
A look at the Big Picture (the general election) reveals something much different.
The case against Hillary Clinton: This is the disaster Democrats must avoid - Salon.com
Contrary to conventional pundit wisdom, Hillary is not the stronger general-election candidate.
So far Clinton seems to have retained the status of favorite for the Democratic nomination. But there are strong signs that it’s Sanders who would fare better against the eventual GOP nominee.
Recent polling shows Sanders doing better than Clinton against each of the Republican contenders. One can question the relevance of early-stage match ups such as these, but as Princeton’s Matt Karp recently noted in his eye-opening piece on Sanders and Clinton’s comparative electability:
We may be skeptical about the predictive power of these findings, nine months before Election Day. But it’s wrong to call them “absolutely worthless” … In a comprehensive analysis of elections between 1952 and 2008, Robert Erikson and Christopher Wleizen found that matchup polls as early as April have generally produced results close to the outcome in November.
Even much earlier “trial heats” seem to be far from meaningless. As partisan polarization has increased over the last three decades, there’s some evidence that early polling has become more predictive than ever. In all five elections since 1996, February matchup polls yielded average results within two points of the final outcome.
Still skeptical? Consider the candidates’ favorability ratings: Sanders is the only one of the leading candidates—from either party—with a greater favorable than unfavorable rating. Hillary’s 53-percent unfavorable rating would, as Karp noted, “make her the most disliked presidential nominee in modern history.” (See all of the candidates’ ratings here.)
A look at party identification is also revealing: Independents now vastly outnumber Democrats or Republicans, and among independents, Sanders is far and away the favorite. Meanwhile, as statistician Joshua Loftus notes: “Dangerously, even Donald Trump and Ted Cruz get a much greater proportion of independent voters than Clinton.
A VOTE FOR BERNIE IS A VOTE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS
Dr. Cornel West, one of the preeminent public intellectuals on issues of a race and inequality and an avid Sanders supporter, had harsh words for civil rights leaders supporting Clinton's campaign during an interview with VICE News as he toured South Carolina on Sanders' behalf last week.
West spoke at length of "Brother Bernie's" activism during the civil rights era, while questioning Clinton's commitment to the cause. When asked why some civil rights leaders were backing Clinton's campaign, including Rep. John Lewis, who marched in Selma in 1965, West replied that Lewis and others had lost their way.
Cornel West Says Civil Rights Leaders That Support Hillary Clinton Have Lost Their Way | VICE News
More broadly, West asserted that black politicians supporting Clinton lack the kind of "courage" it takes to support Sanders and to "pursue truth" and justice.
"Most black politicians these days are neoliberal politicians, so it's almost natural for them to side with Hillary Clinton," he said. "But with the neoliberal era coming to a close, four months from now [when the party picks its nominee], you watch how the shift sets in."
Neither Clyburn's office nor Lewis' responded to requests for comment for this story.
West's comments come just eight months after he praised Lewis at a Unitarian Universalists event honoring the congressman, who received a human rights award. At the time, West called Lewis a "moral titan" and suggested that the same young people he now says are more courageous than Lewis could learn something from the congressman.
West spoke at length of "Brother Bernie's" activism during the civil rights era, while questioning Clinton's commitment to the cause. When asked why some civil rights leaders were backing Clinton's campaign, including Rep. John Lewis, who marched in Selma in 1965, West replied that Lewis and others had lost their way.
Cornel West Says Civil Rights Leaders That Support Hillary Clinton Have Lost Their Way | VICE News
More broadly, West asserted that black politicians supporting Clinton lack the kind of "courage" it takes to support Sanders and to "pursue truth" and justice.
"Most black politicians these days are neoliberal politicians, so it's almost natural for them to side with Hillary Clinton," he said. "But with the neoliberal era coming to a close, four months from now [when the party picks its nominee], you watch how the shift sets in."
Neither Clyburn's office nor Lewis' responded to requests for comment for this story.
West's comments come just eight months after he praised Lewis at a Unitarian Universalists event honoring the congressman, who received a human rights award. At the time, West called Lewis a "moral titan" and suggested that the same young people he now says are more courageous than Lewis could learn something from the congressman.
HILLARY; DON'T WORRY - TRUST ME - PROMISE
Something smells fishy in Denmark; err ---- I mean Hillary's campaign.
If there's nothing to worry about, I promise, then why not just release the transcripts?
What is all the "I'll show you mine if you show me yours" about?
One thing for sure, Hillary does not want to make public what she said behind closed doors that made her a cool $675,000.00
So, here's what I propose. How about someone in the audience that attended one of these very expensive speeches come out with their version of what was said? Maybe just the highlights? Or maybe selling it to the tabloids?
These are not highly classified government documents that need to be censured and redacted. Or are they?
Could this be a "Romney Moment" for Hillary?
Clinton Promises 'Absolutely, Absolutely' Nothing to Worry About in Wall Street Speeches | Common Dreams | Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community
If there's nothing to worry about, I promise, then why not just release the transcripts?
What is all the "I'll show you mine if you show me yours" about?
One thing for sure, Hillary does not want to make public what she said behind closed doors that made her a cool $675,000.00
So, here's what I propose. How about someone in the audience that attended one of these very expensive speeches come out with their version of what was said? Maybe just the highlights? Or maybe selling it to the tabloids?
These are not highly classified government documents that need to be censured and redacted. Or are they?
Could this be a "Romney Moment" for Hillary?
Clinton Promises 'Absolutely, Absolutely' Nothing to Worry About in Wall Street Speeches | Common Dreams | Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community
FEELING THE BERN? VOTE!
On March 1, presidential candidates will be evaluated by voters in 12 states and one territory – that’s the largest number of primary elections to be held on any given day and also the day when the largest number of delegates are chosen. And because those states and territories are so different from one another, it’s also the first time in the electoral calendar that the presidential hopefuls will really have their national electability put to the test. No wonder it’s known as Super Tuesday.
Here, we give you a primer on all 13 locations that will, together, shape the rest of the race.
Alabama
Primaries held: Republican and Democratic presidential primaries
Things to watch out for: There is very little polling of Democrats in Alabama – just one poll so far in fact. Between February 14 and 16, Public Policy Polling (PPP) included Alabama in 12 states it looked at to see how the Democratic candidates were faring. PPP found that of the 500 primary-goers spoken to in Alabama, Hillary Clinton was leading Bernie Sanders 59% to 31%, and 74% of those polled said they were firmly committed to their choice. There is more polling data on the Republican side, the average of which points to a steady double-digit lead for Donald Trump, according toReal Clear Politics .
Demographics: The percentage of Alabama’s population that is black is twice as high as it is nationally. The PPP poll found that black Alabamians are much more likely to vote for Clinton than Sanders (67-22). However, economic concerns in the state may weaken Clinton’s advantage: the median household income in Alabama is almost $10kbelow the national median and 18.6% of Alabamians live below the poverty level (compared to 15.4% nationally). When PPP asked respondents which candidate they trusted to crack down on Wall Street, Clinton’s lead fell to 48-35 although Sanders was not necessarily trusted on broader economic competence. When asked which candidate they trusted for “raising incomes of average Americans” Clinton was ahead of Sanders 56-32.
Alaska
Primaries held: Republican presidential caucuses
Delegates: 28 Republican delegates
Thing to watch out for: Alaska has also been overlooked by the pollsters. Just one pollhas checked the temperament of Republican caucus-goers here and that was back in January so there is a lot of uncertainty about what will happen here on March 1. (The Democratic caucuses will be held later in the month, on March 26.)
Demographics: The smallest eligible voter population after Wyoming and Vermont, Alaska doesn’t have many delegates to play with. With a median household income of $70,760 (the national figure is$53,046 ), Alaska is one of the wealthiest states in the country.
American Samoa
Primaries held: Democratic presidential caucuses
Delegates: 10 Democratic delegates
Thing to watch out for: Well, just watching it would be a start. US territories often get forgotten during the electoral process, not least by the media.
Demographics: The 55,000 residents of this tiny group of islands near Australia are considered US nationals but not US citizens – as such, they can send delegates to nominating conventions but they are unable to vote in the national election itself.
Arkansas
Primaries held: Democratic and Republican presidential primaries
Thing to watch out for: Clinton won in 2008 in the state where her husband was governor and she looks set to do so again. Republican polling here is scarce though so any numbers should be treated with caution – just one poll has been conducted so far this year, which found Trump was four points behind Ted Cruz. In 2012, Mitt Romney won here (and went on to be the Republican Presidential nominee) but in 2008, Mick Huckabee won Arkansas but did not win the national vote.
Demographics: Compared to the rest of the country, voters in Arkansas are more likely to be white and less likely to have completed a bachelor’s degree.
Colorado
Primaries held: Democratic and Republican presidential caucuses
Things to watch out for: These caucuses are a little unusual since the Republican party will not vote here but will instead allow its 37 delegates to remain unpledged to a specific candidate. Last summer, it was decided that the state would forfeit its role in the early nomination process. Republican party officials in Colorado decided that theywanted delegates to be free agents rather than having their hands tied at the national convention in Cleveland in July. Votes will still take place just like at normal caucuses but they won’t be official and delegates won’t necessarily be bound by the results. It’s not yet clear whether that will work for or against Republican candidates that are doing well in Colorado right now. In fact, it’s not even very clear who is doing well in Colorado right now. There’s very little Republican polling here – just one survey conducted by Quinnipiac University in November which found that Ben Carson was leading by 6 percentage points over of Rubio.
Demographics: Voters here are more likely to have completed undergraduate studies than average American voters – they are also slightly wealthier and younger than the rest of the electorate. Many of those young voters are undecided – a fact which could prove important even once the primary process is over and done with.
Georgia
Primaries held: Democratic and Republican presidential primaries
Thing to watch out for: This was one of the only states that Newt Gingrich won in 2012. This time around, Trump is comfortably leading and Clinton looks almost certain to win, despite the fact that Obama beat her here in 2008.
Demographics: Almost one in three voters here are black. According to PPP, 70% of Democratic black voters here support Clinton over Sanders.
Massachusetts
Primaries held: Democratic and Republican presidential primaries
Thing to watch out for: This is one of the closest Democratic races to be held on Super Tuesday – Clinton and Sanders are just a few percentage points apart (although Clinton won here in 2008). Meanwhile, Trump is leading comfortably in Massachusetts.
Demographics: Voters in the state are whiter and wealthier than the national average. In the 2012 national election , the state leaned more toward Democrats by one of the widest margins in the country and had the 9th highest turnout of any state.
Minnesota
Primaries held: Democratic and Republican presidential caucuses
Thing to watch out for: In previous years, Minnesota has held its elections earlier.According toMinnesota Republican party chairman Keith Downey, holding their caucuses on March 1 “will make Minnesota more relevant in the process”.
Demographics: 86% of voters in Minnesota are white – although the age breakdown of voters here is broadly similar to the national picture.
Oklahoma
Primaries held: Democratic and Republican presidential primaries
Thing to watch out for: Both Clinton and Trump have a smaller lead here than they do nationally so this will be an interesting test ground for both candidates. According toReal Clear Politics ’ polling averages, for Republicans this could also be a close fight for second place since Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are less than two percentage points apart.
Demographics: In the last national election, Oklahoma had the 49th lowest turnout of any US state.Voters there are poorer and more likely to be white than the US electorate as a whole.
Tennessee
Primaries held: Democratic and Republican presidential primaries
Thing to watch out for: Be cautious of polling on this state because there’s little of it, which means a much bigger margin of error. However Clinton has been the clear winner of the two polls that have been conducted since November – she also won here in 2008.
Demographics: Voters here are more likely to be white and have a lower household income than the national average. Tennessee is the most religious of the Super Tuesday states. As the graphic below from Pew Research Center shows, 80% of adults here say religion is very important and Evangelical Protestants (a group which has been favorable to Ted Cruz in the past) make up 67% of Tennesseans.
Texas
Primaries held: Democratic and Republican presidential primaries
Things to watch out for: Just watch everything. With so many delegates, Texas will be an incredibly important state in determining the presidential candidates in this election. Cruz is leading in the polls in Texas; a win could help turn the candidate’s fortunes around at the national level. In 2008, Texans voted for Clinton, a fact which might still work in her favour eight years later.
Demographics: In the last national election, Texas had one of the lowest turnout rates in the country.After New Mexico , this is the most important Latino voting state in the country – 35% of voters here are Hispanic.
Vermont
Primaries held: Democratic and Republican presidential primaries
Thing to watch out for: Bernie Sanders is likely to clean up in this, his home state. But that’s unlikely to be a big help to him overall. Since Vermont is one of the least populated states in the country, only 26 Democratic delegates will have a say here.
Demographics: 96% of voters here are white and one in five are over the age of 65.
Virginia
Primaries held: Democratic and Republican presidential primaries
Thing to watch out for: This might not be the most exciting of the Super Tuesday races – Clinton looks like a sure thing and Trump’s got a pretty solid chance too according to the polls that have come out so far this year.
Demographics: Voters in Virginia are slightly wealthier and more likely to have completed a bachelor’s degree than the national average.
Sunday, February 28, 2016
WHY VOTE FOR AN OLD WHITE GUY FROM VERMONT?
Simply put; He's the real deal!
What you see and hear is what you get. What he says is what he believes, not what you want to hear be he in New England, in the Deep South, Midwest, or Hollywood.
When he speaks he speaks from both the head and heart and that's unusual in American politics. It probably happens once in a few lifetimes.
His message is simple; Americans are being screwed and he wants them to join him in putting a stop to it.
His solution is also simple; in order to do that will require a "political revolution." No more putting band aids on a gushing wound. The revolution is not about torches and pitchforks, but about votes. One vote-one person, multiplied millions of times is a "yuuuuge" weapon if you make your vote count by using it.
His support comes from those who have been shut out of the political Establishment which is made up of the "Romney 47%", the "First-time voter", the "discouraged voter" who stopped going to the polls because there was no-one to vote for who represented them. Those who are members of the shrinking "middle class" and those who are waking up to the reality that the system is "rigged" against them.
That's who Bernie Sanders speaks to (NOT Wall Street bankers) , and that's who will get him elected in November.
What you see and hear is what you get. What he says is what he believes, not what you want to hear be he in New England, in the Deep South, Midwest, or Hollywood.
When he speaks he speaks from both the head and heart and that's unusual in American politics. It probably happens once in a few lifetimes.
His message is simple; Americans are being screwed and he wants them to join him in putting a stop to it.
His solution is also simple; in order to do that will require a "political revolution." No more putting band aids on a gushing wound. The revolution is not about torches and pitchforks, but about votes. One vote-one person, multiplied millions of times is a "yuuuuge" weapon if you make your vote count by using it.
His support comes from those who have been shut out of the political Establishment which is made up of the "Romney 47%", the "First-time voter", the "discouraged voter" who stopped going to the polls because there was no-one to vote for who represented them. Those who are members of the shrinking "middle class" and those who are waking up to the reality that the system is "rigged" against them.
That's who Bernie Sanders speaks to (NOT Wall Street bankers) , and that's who will get him elected in November.
Saturday, February 27, 2016
A BANK YOU CAN TRUST
Bernie has sponsored legislation to let the Postal Service find innovative new ways to shore up its finances. Sanders proposed that the U.S. Postal Service offer banking services—“postal banking”—which was provided until 1967.
Simply put, the Post Office would offer basic banking services to customers—like low-interest savings accounts, debit cards and even some simple types of loans. The USPS already takes in more than $100 million in revenue each year by selling postal money orders.
“One of the ways that I think we can help not only the U.S. Postal Service, but help a lot of low-income people—if you are a low-income person, it is, depending upon where you live, very difficult to find normal banking. Banks don’t want you,” Bernie continued, “And what people are forced to do is go to payday lenders who charge outrageously high interest rates. You go to check-cashing places, which rip you off. And, yes, I think that the postal service, in fact, can play an important role in providing modest types of banking service to folks who need it.”
An estimated 68 million people live in “bank deserts,” areas without access to financial services. The banks don’t want to serve these people because they’re mostly poor, leaving them to be gouged by check-cashing shops and payday lenders.
Postal banking could save low-income families thousands of dollars per year, AND provide a new revenue stream for the Post Office.
BILLIONAIRE SAYS ECONOMY IS JUST FINE; SURPRISE!
Coming from Warren Buffett, one of the richest people on the planet (around $80 billion) I can't disagree with him. For him, and those wealthy enough to invest in his money pot I imagine everything is just fine.
Did Warren feel the effects of the 2008 crash? Did he lose his home(s)? Did his retirement nest egg vanish?
From where Warren and the rest of the 1% sit; all is well and continues to get better. But, let's get down to earth now and the picture is not so bright, regardless of what Warren says. And, asking people to stop complaining is what any good capitalist would do.
In 2015, Berkshire's net worth grew $15.4 billion, or 6.4%, the "Oracle of Omaha" said. In the wide-ranging letter, Buffett, who preaches investment in a diversified collection of companies rather than securities, remains an optimist despite complaints about the 2% pace of economic growth.
"It’s an election year, and candidates can’t stop speaking about our country’s problems (which, of course, only they can solve). As a result of this negative drumbeat, many Americans now believe that their children will not live as well as they themselves do," said Buffett, 85. "That view is dead wrong: The babies being born in America today are the luckiest crop in history."
He added that "for 240 years it’s been a terrible mistake to bet against America, and now is no time to start. America’s golden goose of commerce and innovation will continue to lay more and larger eggs. America’s social security promises will be honored and perhaps made more generous."
So, for the rest of Main Street America let's consider what Bernie Sanders has to say about our economy;
In all due respect, you’re missing the main point. And the main point in the Congress, it’s not the Republicans and Democrats hate each other. That’s a mythology from the media.
The real issue is that Congress is owned by big money and refuses to do what the American people want them to do.
Notice that he didn’t say that “Republicans are owned by big money.” Sanders believes that ALL of Congress is owned by big money. That’s what he means when he says that the system is rigged. His view is that the gridlock we are witnessing right now is not a result of ideological differences. It is because big money is in charge and that makes Congress oblivious to the needs of the American people. It’s why he thinks the only way to change things is via a revolution of the people.
When it comes to this central belief of Sanders, it is not something new for him. Thirty years ago when he was Mayor of Burlington, VT, here’s what he told the LA Times:
I think from one end of this country to the other people are ripe for political revolution. Fifty percent of the people do not bother voting in the presidential and statewide elections. The vast majority of those not voting are low-income people who have given up on America. The whole quality of life in America is based on greed. I believe in the redistribution of wealth in this nation.
We are demonstrating in Burlington the peoples’ contempt for conventional old-fashioned Democratic and Republican politics. The good news here is that the two-party system and corporate establishment are not invincible.
Thursday, February 25, 2016
PRISONS; CLINTON BUILT THEM AND BUSH PRIVATIZED THEM
Bill and George were in office but it was the Establishment that forged the prison system we have today.
A system that is reserved for the majority of lower income; mostly minority while sparing the rich and connected. The rich exempt themselves by either being "too big" to jail of the classic "afluenza" defense where you just need to show you were spoiled and never taught to obey laws.
Under former President Bill Clinton's administration the number of incarcerated rose dramatically, the increase primarily being composed of young black males.According to the Los Angeles Times, "During Clinton's eight-year tenure, the total population of federal and state prisons combined rose by 673,000 inmates--235,000 more than during Reagan's two terms." As I wrote in one of the more popular pieces on incarceration, The Black Male Incarceration Problem Is Real and It's Catastrophic,
"... there are currently more African American men incarcerated in the U.S. than the total prison populations in India, Argentina, Canada, Lebanon, Japan, Germany, Finland, Israel and England combined. India alone is a country of 1.2 Billion people, the country in total only has around 380,000 prisoners."
With a call to "end the private prison racket in America," a group of progressive lawmakers on Thursday introduced a bill that seeks to subvert the reigning "pro-incarceration agenda"by banning private prisons, reinstating the federal parole system, and eliminating quotas for the number of immigrants held in detention.
"It is morally repugnant and a national tragedy that we have privatized prisons all over America," said Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders, one of the legislation's lead sponsors along with Reps. Raúl M. Grijalva (D-Ariz.), Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), and Rep. Bobby L. Rush (D-Ill.). "We cannot fix our criminal justice system if corporations are allowed to profit from mass incarceration. Keeping human beings in jail for long periods of time must no longer be an acceptable business model in America."
With the ultimate goal of reducing the inmate population in federal, state, and local facilities, the Justice Is Not For Sale Act (pdf) would, according to a fact sheet:
Bar federal, state, and local governments from contracting with private companies starting two years after the bill is passed;
Reinstate the federal parole system to allow "individualized, risk-based determinations regarding each prisoner and restore fairness in the system;"
Increase oversight to prevent companies from overcharging inmates and their families for services like banking and telephone calls;
End the requirement that Immigration and Customs Enforcement maintain a level of 34,000 detention beds; and
End immigrant family detention.
"In a society dedicated to liberty and justice, for-profit prisons offend our bedrock principles," Ellison said in a statement. "Private prison corporations spend millions of dollars lobbying government for harsher sentencing laws and immigration policy that serves their bottom line, while taxpayers foot the $80 billion dollar a year bill to incarcerate 2.3 million people. Incarceration should be about rehabilitation, not profit.
A system that is reserved for the majority of lower income; mostly minority while sparing the rich and connected. The rich exempt themselves by either being "too big" to jail of the classic "afluenza" defense where you just need to show you were spoiled and never taught to obey laws.
Under former President Bill Clinton's administration the number of incarcerated rose dramatically, the increase primarily being composed of young black males.According to the Los Angeles Times, "During Clinton's eight-year tenure, the total population of federal and state prisons combined rose by 673,000 inmates--235,000 more than during Reagan's two terms." As I wrote in one of the more popular pieces on incarceration, The Black Male Incarceration Problem Is Real and It's Catastrophic,
"... there are currently more African American men incarcerated in the U.S. than the total prison populations in India, Argentina, Canada, Lebanon, Japan, Germany, Finland, Israel and England combined. India alone is a country of 1.2 Billion people, the country in total only has around 380,000 prisoners."
"We cannot fix our criminal justice system if corporations are allowed to profit from mass incarceration."
—Senator Bernie Sanders
—Senator Bernie Sanders
With a call to "end the private prison racket in America," a group of progressive lawmakers on Thursday introduced a bill that seeks to subvert the reigning "pro-incarceration agenda"by banning private prisons, reinstating the federal parole system, and eliminating quotas for the number of immigrants held in detention.
"It is morally repugnant and a national tragedy that we have privatized prisons all over America," said Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders, one of the legislation's lead sponsors along with Reps. Raúl M. Grijalva (D-Ariz.), Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), and Rep. Bobby L. Rush (D-Ill.). "We cannot fix our criminal justice system if corporations are allowed to profit from mass incarceration. Keeping human beings in jail for long periods of time must no longer be an acceptable business model in America."
With the ultimate goal of reducing the inmate population in federal, state, and local facilities, the Justice Is Not For Sale Act (pdf) would, according to a fact sheet:
Bar federal, state, and local governments from contracting with private companies starting two years after the bill is passed;
Reinstate the federal parole system to allow "individualized, risk-based determinations regarding each prisoner and restore fairness in the system;"
Increase oversight to prevent companies from overcharging inmates and their families for services like banking and telephone calls;
End the requirement that Immigration and Customs Enforcement maintain a level of 34,000 detention beds; and
End immigrant family detention.
"In a society dedicated to liberty and justice, for-profit prisons offend our bedrock principles," Ellison said in a statement. "Private prison corporations spend millions of dollars lobbying government for harsher sentencing laws and immigration policy that serves their bottom line, while taxpayers foot the $80 billion dollar a year bill to incarcerate 2.3 million people. Incarceration should be about rehabilitation, not profit.
Now, more than ever, we need to restore confidence in our criminal justice system. Step one is taking the profit out of the punishment."
WHO'S THAT BEING DRAGGED AWAY AT A CIVIL RIGHTS RALLY?
P.S. This photo's been going around since this weekend, after the Chicago Tribune found it in their archives. It's Bernie Sanders being arrested in 1963 during a civil rights demonstration on the south side of Chicago. Coincidentally, Bernie mentioned this incident at a dinner I attended recently, and he said immediately after this picture was taken, he was thrown into a police van.
This photo's been going around since this weekend, after the Chicago Tribune found it in their archives. It's Bernie Sanders being arrested in 1963 during a civil rights demonstration on the south side of Chicago. Coincidentally, Bernie mentioned this incident at a dinner I attended recently, and he said immediately after this picture was taken, he was thrown into a police van.
HOT AIR GAZETTE: HILLARY HAS A "ROMNEY" MOMENT - OOOOOPPS!
It was only a $500.00 a plate event; not the $50,000 Romney bash by far, but one person who anted up wanted more than a meal and was promptly booted out. Why? Because the question was not on the talking points list, leaving Hillary in the wind.
Two sources detailing a statement Hillary Clinton made concerning her advocacy in favor of the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, have the potential to cause a major tide shift away from Clinton by and among African American voters.
The sources are:
Antonio Moore "Hillary Clinton Should Ask for Black America's Forgiveness Before She Asks for its Vote". http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/hillary-clinton-should-as_b_9238064.html
-and-
"Lessons From the O.J. Simpson Case for the Presidential Race and the Nation’s Racial Divide," by Marjorie Cohn. http://www.globalresearch.ca/lessons-from-the-o-j-simpson-case-for-the-presidential-race-and-the-nations-racial-divide/5508521
The Clinton statement is:
“They are not just gangs of kids anymore. They are often the kinds of kids that are called ‘super-predators.’ No conscience, no empathy. We can talk about why they ended that way, but first we have bring them to heel.”
Two sources detailing a statement Hillary Clinton made concerning her advocacy in favor of the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, have the potential to cause a major tide shift away from Clinton by and among African American voters.
The sources are:
Antonio Moore "Hillary Clinton Should Ask for Black America's Forgiveness Before She Asks for its Vote". http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/hillary-clinton-should-as_b_9238064.html
-and-
"Lessons From the O.J. Simpson Case for the Presidential Race and the Nation’s Racial Divide," by Marjorie Cohn. http://www.globalresearch.ca/lessons-from-the-o-j-simpson-case-for-the-presidential-race-and-the-nations-racial-divide/5508521
The Clinton statement is:
“They are not just gangs of kids anymore. They are often the kinds of kids that are called ‘super-predators.’ No conscience, no empathy. We can talk about why they ended that way, but first we have bring them to heel.”
That is a politically charged statement, to put it no more forcefully than that.
Wednesday, February 24, 2016
THE PINOCCHIO EFFECT IN POLITICS
We've all seen what happens when we voted someone into office who was a very different person when they got there. It's called American politics. Tell people what they want to hear to get elected and do what you want to do when you take office. Grandpa Bush is famous for his "read my lips, no new taxes" blooper. Then there's Romney writing off 47% of the population behind closed doors as he was scheming on getting their votes.
The 2016 crop of politicians is not much different with a few exceptions. That gives voters a rare opportunity to elect someone that might actually "walk the talk." Say what they mean, and mean what they say.
Words like "honest" "trustworthy" are used sparingly in politics. Not surprising given the amount of "canned" BS that spews from the mouths of most main stream Establishment politicians who, as Marco Rubio so eloquently demonstrated are "scripted" by their donors to say (and repeat over and over again) what they believe voters want to hear. That's the nature of the beast and Republicans and Democrats alike are conditioned to respond that way even, as in Rubio's case, it sounds "robotic"
So, why are these words coming up at the voting booths these days? The answer is Bernie Sanders.
As Hillary Clinton faces increased scrutiny for her use of an unsecured personal email server while secretary of state, the Democratic presidential candidate continues to struggle to win voters over on the basis of trust.
The wide majority of Democratic primary voters who focused primarily on the trustworthiness of candidates backed Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) in the New Hampshire primary Tuesday, according to exit polls reported by ABC News.
Specifically, one-third of New Hampshire Democratic primary voters focused on the candidate who they believed to be most honest and trustworthy. Ninety-two percent of these individuals voted for Sanders, while 6 percent backed Clinton for the nomination.
Overall, Clinton lost the primary race to Sanders by 22 points.
Clinton’s honest rating, along with her poll numbers, has taken a hit since it was revealed last March that she used personal email to conduct government business while at the State Department. The Obama administration recently confirmed that nearly two dozen emails on Clinton’s server contain top secret information. Clinton has insisted that she never sent nor received information marked classified on her private email.
Clinton’s campaign has dismissed the controversy surrounding her email as the result of partisan efforts to damage her presidential ambitions. The FBI is currently investigating her email setup, which the agency formally confirmed for the first time in a letter earlier this month.
More than a quarter of Democratic primary voters in New Hampshire said they focused on the candidate who “cares about people like me,” according to exit polls Tuesday. Eight-in-10 of these voters backed Sanders, while 18 percent cast their ballots for Clinton.
Sanders beat Clinton among most demographic groups Tuesday, including women. Sanders dominated among Democratic voters under the age of 30, winning 84 percent to Clinton’s 15 percent. Sanders was similarly successful among younger voters in the Iowa Democratic caucus last week, where Clinton narrowly beat him.
During a speech from New Hampshire Tuesday night after the results were announced, Clinton acknowledged that she has “work to do” among younger voters. Her campaign has sought to minimize the importance of the first-in-the-nation Democratic primary, instead putting emphasis on states that vote in March.
While Sanders beat Clinton among most demographics , Clinton did prevail among those ages 65 and older and those belonging to families who make over $200,000 annually, according to the New York Times.
1 in 5 Americans say Hillary Clinton is “dishonest” or a “liar.” Here’s why that’s a big problem.
On Tuesday, a federal judge ruled that several top aides to Hillary Clinton during her time at the State Department were required to testify under oathabout whether exclusively using a private email server while serving as secretary of state amounted to a deliberate attempt to shield information from the public.
This is the latest in a series of developments regarding Clinton’s email server — and her decision to exclusively use it during her time as the nation’s top diplomat. (Clinton is the first and only secretary of state to only use a private server for her correspondence.) Almost weekly now, there is some news in one of the three ongoing investigations — two at State, one by the FBI — into Clinton. And the drip, drip, drip effect of these now-regular revelations continues to have a major impact on how Clinton is viewed by the voting public.
Gallup released a fascinating bit of data Tuesday that speaks to Clinton’s trust problem. They asked people to offer up the first word or phrase that came to mind when the name “Hillary Clinton” was mentioned. Here’s what the results of that open-ended question looked like:
The 2016 crop of politicians is not much different with a few exceptions. That gives voters a rare opportunity to elect someone that might actually "walk the talk." Say what they mean, and mean what they say.
Words like "honest" "trustworthy" are used sparingly in politics. Not surprising given the amount of "canned" BS that spews from the mouths of most main stream Establishment politicians who, as Marco Rubio so eloquently demonstrated are "scripted" by their donors to say (and repeat over and over again) what they believe voters want to hear. That's the nature of the beast and Republicans and Democrats alike are conditioned to respond that way even, as in Rubio's case, it sounds "robotic"
So, why are these words coming up at the voting booths these days? The answer is Bernie Sanders.
As Hillary Clinton faces increased scrutiny for her use of an unsecured personal email server while secretary of state, the Democratic presidential candidate continues to struggle to win voters over on the basis of trust.
The wide majority of Democratic primary voters who focused primarily on the trustworthiness of candidates backed Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) in the New Hampshire primary Tuesday, according to exit polls reported by ABC News.
Specifically, one-third of New Hampshire Democratic primary voters focused on the candidate who they believed to be most honest and trustworthy. Ninety-two percent of these individuals voted for Sanders, while 6 percent backed Clinton for the nomination.
Overall, Clinton lost the primary race to Sanders by 22 points.
Clinton’s honest rating, along with her poll numbers, has taken a hit since it was revealed last March that she used personal email to conduct government business while at the State Department. The Obama administration recently confirmed that nearly two dozen emails on Clinton’s server contain top secret information. Clinton has insisted that she never sent nor received information marked classified on her private email.
Clinton’s campaign has dismissed the controversy surrounding her email as the result of partisan efforts to damage her presidential ambitions. The FBI is currently investigating her email setup, which the agency formally confirmed for the first time in a letter earlier this month.
More than a quarter of Democratic primary voters in New Hampshire said they focused on the candidate who “cares about people like me,” according to exit polls Tuesday. Eight-in-10 of these voters backed Sanders, while 18 percent cast their ballots for Clinton.
Sanders beat Clinton among most demographic groups Tuesday, including women. Sanders dominated among Democratic voters under the age of 30, winning 84 percent to Clinton’s 15 percent. Sanders was similarly successful among younger voters in the Iowa Democratic caucus last week, where Clinton narrowly beat him.
During a speech from New Hampshire Tuesday night after the results were announced, Clinton acknowledged that she has “work to do” among younger voters. Her campaign has sought to minimize the importance of the first-in-the-nation Democratic primary, instead putting emphasis on states that vote in March.
While Sanders beat Clinton among most demographics , Clinton did prevail among those ages 65 and older and those belonging to families who make over $200,000 annually, according to the New York Times.
1 in 5 Americans say Hillary Clinton is “dishonest” or a “liar.” Here’s why that’s a big problem.
On Tuesday, a federal judge ruled that several top aides to Hillary Clinton during her time at the State Department were required to testify under oathabout whether exclusively using a private email server while serving as secretary of state amounted to a deliberate attempt to shield information from the public.
This is the latest in a series of developments regarding Clinton’s email server — and her decision to exclusively use it during her time as the nation’s top diplomat. (Clinton is the first and only secretary of state to only use a private server for her correspondence.) Almost weekly now, there is some news in one of the three ongoing investigations — two at State, one by the FBI — into Clinton. And the drip, drip, drip effect of these now-regular revelations continues to have a major impact on how Clinton is viewed by the voting public.
Gallup released a fascinating bit of data Tuesday that speaks to Clinton’s trust problem. They asked people to offer up the first word or phrase that came to mind when the name “Hillary Clinton” was mentioned. Here’s what the results of that open-ended question looked like:
THE ESTABLISHMENT OLIGARCHS ARE FEELING THE BERN
| Bernie is taking on the Establishment head on. The following message is one of many that are specifically targeted at the super rich who throw money into a corrupt political system that they select candidates who will do their bidding. There are those who have tried to take on the Establishment and either failed at the starting gate or were only able to push back a little, but not enough to stop it. Bernie Sanders believes the time has come for Americans to retake our country and he's asking voters to give him the opportunity to do it;
“I like to give on a scale where I can see impact...” - David Koch
Earlier this year, a number of Republicans flew to California to make fundraising pitches to more than four hundred wealthy conservative donors attending a private conference hosted by the Koch brothers. It’s worth taking a moment to ask the question, who are the Koch brothers, and what do they want? The Koch brothers are the second-wealthiest family in America worth $82 billion. For the Koch brothers, $82 billion in wealth apparently is not good enough. Owning the second-largest private company in America is apparently not good enough. It doesn’t appear that they will be satisfied until they are able to control the entire political process. This issue isn't personal for me. I don't know the Koch brothers, but I do know this. They have advocated for destroying the federal programs that are critical to the financial and personal health of middle class Americans. Now, most Americans know that the Koch brothers are the primary source of funding for the Tea Party, and that’s fine. They know that they favor the outright repeal of the Affordable Care Act, and that’s their opinion. It’s wrong, but that’s fine as well. But it is not widely known that David Koch once ran for Vice President of the United States of America on the Libertarian Party ticket because he believed Ronald Reagan was much too liberal. And he ran on a platform that included the following: “We favor the repeal of the fraudulent, virtually bankrupt and increasingly oppressive Social Security system.” “We favor the abolition of Medicare and Medicaid programs.” “We support repeal of all laws which impede the ability of any person to find employment, such as minimum wage laws…” “We support the eventual repeal of all taxation.” In 1980, David Koch’s presidential ticket received one percent of the vote from the American people. And rightly so. His views were so extreme they were rejected completely out of hand by the American people. But fast forward almost thirty-six years, and one of the most significant realities of modern politics is just how successful David Koch and the like-minded billionaires attending his retreat have been at moving the Republican Party to the extreme right. The ideas above that were dismissed as downright crazy in 1980 are now part of today’s mainstream Republican thinking. The Koch brothers, and billionaires like them, have bought up the private sector and now they’re buying up the government. It’s up to us to put a stop to them, but it will require all of us standing together with one voice on this issue. Here’s the truth: The economic and political systems of this country are stacked against ordinary Americans. The rich get richer and use their wealth to buy elections, and I believe that we cannot change this corrupt system by taking its money. If we’re serious about creating jobs, health care for all, climate change, and the needs of our children and the elderly, we must be serious about campaign finance reform. So far in this election, less than four hundred families have contributed the majority of all the money raised by all the candidates and super PACs combined. According to media reports, one family will spend more money in this election than either the Democratic or Republican Parties. This is not democracy. This is oligarchy. We must pass a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United, and I will not nominate any justice to the Supreme Court who does not make it abundantly clear that she or he will overturn that decision. We need legislation that requires wealthy individuals and corporations who make large campaign contributions to disclose where their money is going. And more importantly, I believe we need to move towards the public funding of elections. Our vision for American democracy should be a nation in which all people, regardless of their income, can participate in the political process, can run for office without begging for contributions from the wealthy and the powerful. |
What Bernie’s liberal critics miss: Attacking him as “unrealistic” is making a huge error
ONE-VOTE-ONE-PERSON OR SUPER DELEGATES AND COIN FLIPS?
The answer to that question is going to be critical in the 2016 primaries where Bernie Sanders is Challenging the Democratic Party Establishment and their candidate; Hillary Clinton.
We have already witnessed how the Establishment regards Bernie by the way the Iowa delegates were assigned with coin flips which magically all went to Hillary.
We are also hearing those who represent the Establishment conjure up lame rationales about the use of Super Delegates in the nominating process which is clearly a "rig" to ensure their candidate takes the prize.
It's clear that Bernie has been catapulted to within single digit points of overtaking Hillary in many of the states she was once a shoe-in to win. The playing field has been leveled and the two candidates are in a dead heat;
What happens next is again left to the voters who should go into the voting booth with as much information as possible on how this democratic political process works and what some are doing to undermine it.
Bernie Sanders believes Americans are not stupid and will make the right decision.
We have already witnessed how the Establishment regards Bernie by the way the Iowa delegates were assigned with coin flips which magically all went to Hillary.
We are also hearing those who represent the Establishment conjure up lame rationales about the use of Super Delegates in the nominating process which is clearly a "rig" to ensure their candidate takes the prize.
It's clear that Bernie has been catapulted to within single digit points of overtaking Hillary in many of the states she was once a shoe-in to win. The playing field has been leveled and the two candidates are in a dead heat;
What happens next is again left to the voters who should go into the voting booth with as much information as possible on how this democratic political process works and what some are doing to undermine it.
Bernie Sanders believes Americans are not stupid and will make the right decision.
Tuesday, February 23, 2016
Monday, February 22, 2016
ESTABLISHMENT RIGGED TO "SELECT" HILLARY
Bernie may well win the popular vote but lose the nomination to Hillary. How? What happened to the "one-person-one-vote" doctrine of the democratic process?
It seem the Establishment has built in safeguards created to prevent what the DNC chairperson called, "grassroots activists" from threatening what has long been cronyism exploited by big money interests who buy favors in return for cash.
Here's how it is playing out in the 2016 Democratic primaries;
Lobbyists are not only staffing and financing Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, they’re also tipping the nomination process in her favor by serving as so-called superdelegates to the Democratic National Convention.
Bernie Sanders won the New Hampshire Democratic primary by more than 22 percentage points and by doing so, earned 15 delegates to Clinton’s 9. So it came as a shock to many observers when Clinton, despite losing the second biggest rout in state history, walked away with the same number of delegates.
That’s because Clinton had the support of six New Hampshire unpledged delegates — better known as superdelegates — consisting of prominent elected officials and members of the Democratic National Committee, who have the same power as the delegates chosen by voters. An Associated Press survey found that superdelegates nationally overwhelmingly supported Clinton.
There are 712 superdelegates in all, which is about 15 percent of the total delegates available and 30 percent of the total needed to win the nomination. If the nomination process is close, superdelegates may effectively pick the party’s presidential nominee, potentially overriding the will of voters.
The following individuals are unelected, Clinton-supporting superdelegates who simultaneously work in the lobbying industry:
Jeff Berman, well-known for his delegate-strategy work in the past, is being paid by the Hillary Clinton campaign to organize her delegate-counting effort while himself being a superdelegate. A “top lobbyist” at Bryan Cave LLP, Berman previously worked as a lobbyist for the private prison company Geo Group and as a lobbyist helping TransCanada build support for the Keystone XL.
Bill Shaheen is one of the six New Hampshire superdelegates to endorse Clinton. Shaheen is a prolific party fundraiser, and his law firm is registered to lobby local officials in the state. The most recently available lobbying records show that Shaheen’s firm is registered to lobby on behalf of the American Council of Life Insurers and PainCare Centers, among other clients. PainCare has faced increasing scrutiny as local officials have noted that eight of the 10 most prolific opioid prescribers in New Hampshire’s Medicaid program worked for PainCare. The flood of prescription painkillers has fueled the heroin epidemic in the region, as four out of five heroin addicts report beginning their drug habit with opioids. Bill is the husband of Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H.
Joanne Dowdell, another New Hampshire superdelegate, is the senior vice president for global government affairs at News Corporation, the parent company of Fox News. Federal Election Commission reports show Dowdell has contributed directly to multiple Democrats as well as to the News Corp PAC, a company committee that splits its donations between lawmakers of both parties. The News Corp government affairs division works to lobby public officials and regulators.
Superdelegates Jill Alper, Minyon Moore, and Maria Cardona are officials at Dewey Square Group, a lobbying firm that is closely affiliated with the Clinton campaign and retained by the Clinton-supporting Super PACs Priorities USA Action and Correct the Record. Alper and Moore are Clinton advisers who have raised over $100,000 for her campaign. Dewey Square Group, as we’ve reported, was retained by the health insurance industry to undermine health reform efforts in 2009, including proposals to change Medicare Advantage. The firm has previously worked to influence policy on behalf of Enron, Countrywide, Citigroup, Coca-Cola, the U.S. Telecom Association and News Corporation.
Tonio Burgos, a fundraiser for Clinton, is a lobbyist registered to influence New York City officials. Burgos’ current client list includes Verizon, Pfizer, and American Airlines.
Emily Giske, also a lobbyist in New York City, is registered to work on behalf of Airbnb, Yum Brands (the parent company of Taco Bell), Pfizer, and the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, a trade group for Wall Street firms such as Goldman Sachs, Fidelity, and Bank of America.
Although they make up only a small proportion of the superdelegates, the presence of lobbyists in such a potentially decisive role adds fuel to the critique that the Democratic Party is influenced by monied special interests.
In recent months, the DNC quietly repealed rules instituted by Barack Obama that banned lobbyists from donating to the party.
It seem the Establishment has built in safeguards created to prevent what the DNC chairperson called, "grassroots activists" from threatening what has long been cronyism exploited by big money interests who buy favors in return for cash.
Here's how it is playing out in the 2016 Democratic primaries;
Lobbyists are not only staffing and financing Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, they’re also tipping the nomination process in her favor by serving as so-called superdelegates to the Democratic National Convention.
Bernie Sanders won the New Hampshire Democratic primary by more than 22 percentage points and by doing so, earned 15 delegates to Clinton’s 9. So it came as a shock to many observers when Clinton, despite losing the second biggest rout in state history, walked away with the same number of delegates.
That’s because Clinton had the support of six New Hampshire unpledged delegates — better known as superdelegates — consisting of prominent elected officials and members of the Democratic National Committee, who have the same power as the delegates chosen by voters. An Associated Press survey found that superdelegates nationally overwhelmingly supported Clinton.
There are 712 superdelegates in all, which is about 15 percent of the total delegates available and 30 percent of the total needed to win the nomination. If the nomination process is close, superdelegates may effectively pick the party’s presidential nominee, potentially overriding the will of voters.
The following individuals are unelected, Clinton-supporting superdelegates who simultaneously work in the lobbying industry:
Jeff Berman, well-known for his delegate-strategy work in the past, is being paid by the Hillary Clinton campaign to organize her delegate-counting effort while himself being a superdelegate. A “top lobbyist” at Bryan Cave LLP, Berman previously worked as a lobbyist for the private prison company Geo Group and as a lobbyist helping TransCanada build support for the Keystone XL.
Bill Shaheen is one of the six New Hampshire superdelegates to endorse Clinton. Shaheen is a prolific party fundraiser, and his law firm is registered to lobby local officials in the state. The most recently available lobbying records show that Shaheen’s firm is registered to lobby on behalf of the American Council of Life Insurers and PainCare Centers, among other clients. PainCare has faced increasing scrutiny as local officials have noted that eight of the 10 most prolific opioid prescribers in New Hampshire’s Medicaid program worked for PainCare. The flood of prescription painkillers has fueled the heroin epidemic in the region, as four out of five heroin addicts report beginning their drug habit with opioids. Bill is the husband of Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H.
Joanne Dowdell, another New Hampshire superdelegate, is the senior vice president for global government affairs at News Corporation, the parent company of Fox News. Federal Election Commission reports show Dowdell has contributed directly to multiple Democrats as well as to the News Corp PAC, a company committee that splits its donations between lawmakers of both parties. The News Corp government affairs division works to lobby public officials and regulators.
Superdelegates Jill Alper, Minyon Moore, and Maria Cardona are officials at Dewey Square Group, a lobbying firm that is closely affiliated with the Clinton campaign and retained by the Clinton-supporting Super PACs Priorities USA Action and Correct the Record. Alper and Moore are Clinton advisers who have raised over $100,000 for her campaign. Dewey Square Group, as we’ve reported, was retained by the health insurance industry to undermine health reform efforts in 2009, including proposals to change Medicare Advantage. The firm has previously worked to influence policy on behalf of Enron, Countrywide, Citigroup, Coca-Cola, the U.S. Telecom Association and News Corporation.
Jennifer Cunningham is the managing director of SKDKnickerbocker, a political consulting firm that provides a variety of services, including advertising and direct lobbying of public officials. In recent years, SKDKnickerbocker helped a coalition of corporate clients lobby the Obama administration on a tax cut for overseas earnings; lobbied for weakened rules governing for-profit colleges; and helped a food industry group undermine Michelle Obama’s nutrition guidelines for foods marketed to children. Recent records show that the firm is providing consulting work for Independence USA PAC, the Super PAC backed by billionaire Michael Bloomberg.
Tonio Burgos, a fundraiser for Clinton, is a lobbyist registered to influence New York City officials. Burgos’ current client list includes Verizon, Pfizer, and American Airlines.
Emily Giske, also a lobbyist in New York City, is registered to work on behalf of Airbnb, Yum Brands (the parent company of Taco Bell), Pfizer, and the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, a trade group for Wall Street firms such as Goldman Sachs, Fidelity, and Bank of America.
Although they make up only a small proportion of the superdelegates, the presence of lobbyists in such a potentially decisive role adds fuel to the critique that the Democratic Party is influenced by monied special interests.
In recent months, the DNC quietly repealed rules instituted by Barack Obama that banned lobbyists from donating to the party.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)