St. Joseph County Prosecutor Michael Dvorak: Drop the "feticide" charge against Purvi Patel
Natasha Chart
Campaign Director
RH Reality Check
December 17, 2014
See Petition
This Friday, December 19th, an Indiana trial court will hold a hearing on criminal charges brought against Purvi Patel, an Indiana woman who says that she suffered a stillbirth. Prosecutors have charged Ms. Patel with two contradictory charges. They claim that she gave birth to a newborn and then neglected the infant, charging Ms. Patel with “neglect of a dependent.” Simultaneously, they claim that she intentionally terminated her pregnancy, charging her with the crime of “feticide.” Both crimes are felonies that are punishable by between six and 20 years in prison.
St. Joseph County Prosecutor Michael Dvorak must not use Indiana’s feticide law to punish pregnant women who have abortions or experience stillbirths, and should immediately drop the "feticide" charge against Purvi Patel.
Neglecting to provide care for a newborn is a serious offense, morally and legally. Yet the contradictory charges make clear that the prosecutors are not themselves convinced that this is what happened. Instead the State of Indiana seeks to use the prosecution of Ms. Patel to establish legal precedent for using the state’s feticide law to lock up women who have abortions or experience stillbirths
Indiana's feticide law was passed with the state legislature's claim that it was for the protection of pregnant women. If this charge is allowed to stand, it will be clear that it was never anything more than an attempt by the State of Indiana to criminalize women who have abortions or are unable to carry a pregnancy to term.
Criminalizing abortion is dangerous for women and ruinous for their families.
Indiana must not go the way of El Salvador and other countries where abortion is criminalized. In these countries, where women's health care providers are turned into informants against them, pregnant women are avoiding medical care for fear that any problem in pregnancy will be reported to law enforcement. Mothers are not only going to jail for having abortions, but also for suffering miscarriages and stillbirths...
Wednesday, December 17, 2014
Saturday, May 31, 2014
Study: American Households Hit 43-Year Low In Net Worth
Study: American Households Hit 43-Year Low In Net Worth
CBS
November 30, 2012
WASHINGTON (CBS DC) – The median net worth of American households has dropped to a 43-year low as the lower and middle classes appear poorer and less stable than they have been since 1969.
According to a recent study by New York University economics professor Edward N. Wolff, median net worth is at the decades-low figure of $57,000 (in 2010 dollars). And as the numbers in his study reflect, the situation only appears worse when all the statistics are taken as a whole.
[Chart of changes between 1983 and 2010:]
According to Wolff, between 1983 and 2010, the percentage of households with less than $10,000 in assets (using constant 1995 dollars) rose from 29.7 percent to 37.1 percent. The “less than $10,000″ figure includes the numerous households that have no assets at all, or “negative assets,” which is otherwise known as “debt.”
Over that same period of time, the wealthiest 1 percent of American households increased their average wealth by 71 percent.
As noted by Daily Finance, from 1983 to 2010 the share of total wealth held by the richest 10 percent of American households increased from 68.2 percent to 76.7 percent. Meanwhile, all the rest of Americans lost financial ground.
An August Pew Research Center study found that many in the middle-class are divided on how they believe his gap widened.
Fully 85 percent of self-described middle-class adults say it is more difficult now than it was a decade ago for middle-class people to maintain their standard of living. Of those who feel this way, 62 percent say “a lot” of the blame lies with Congress, while 54 percent say the same about banks and financial institutions, 47 percent about large corporations, 44 percent about the Bush administration, 39 percent about foreign competition and 34 percent about the Obama administration.
Just 8 percent put “a lot” of blame on the middle class itself.
“This downbeat take on their economic situation comes at the end of a decade in which, for the first time since the end of World War II, mean family incomes declined for Americans in all income tiers,” the Pew Report stated. “But the middle-income tier—defined in this Pew Research analysis as all adults whose annual household income is two-thirds to double the national median —is the only one that also shrunk in size, a trend that has continued over the past four decades.”
Wolff’s focus on total wealth not only measures how much money a household brings in, but also the amount it accumulates. This latter number is very significant — economically secure households are generally more comfortable spending their disposable income, and are less likely to become a drag on the social safety net.
Stark Infographic of Too-Big-to-Fail Banks Represents 1% Consolidation in America
David Harris-Gershon (The Troubadour)
Daily Kos
Fri May 30, 2014
The four banks listed in the infographic below – CitiGroup, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, and Wells Fargo – have received nearly $93 billion in taxpayer funds ($92,849,517,353 to be exact) since the bailouts began in 2008.
While they make up a small percentage of the 940 bailout recipients which have, to date, received $611 billion dollars from American taxpayers, they represent a significant chunk of those funds. More importantly, their acquisition trajectories represent the consolidation of major banking institutions in America which have made them "too-big-to-fail," or so we've been told.
Click on the infographic above to enlarge.
The graphic above is not a statistical representation, as it does not display the relative sizes of those banks acquired, nor does it indicate which banks disappeared as a result of forced acquisitions. However, it does visually represent how banking institutions in this country are capable of not just dictating regulatory practices with their undeniable influence and size, but are able to get away with holding the country hostage after those criminal and unethical activities which brought our nation's economy to its knees and is serving to widen growing inequalities in America.
Regarding that latter point, income inequality is higher than its been since 1928, which is partly responsible for a crushing wealth gap in which the bottom 60 percent of Americans own only 3.5 percent of the country's wealth. We have a shrinking middle class with disappearing disposable incomes and an increasing number of Americans with no disposable incomes to speak of. Over 46 million Americans are below the poverty line, many of whom are employed but finding that "hard work is just not enough" anymore.
This is at a time in which behemoth financial institutions are getting larger, consolidating more and more wealth, and being not just financially protected by that consolidation – vacuuming up taxpayer funds from a drowning citizenry – but being legally protected as well.
In 2013, Eric Holder admitted that global financial institutions in the U.S. and abroad have become so large as to be above the law. This truth came into stark focus when the British bank HSBC, which does significant business in America, was neither shut down in the U.S. nor pursued with criminal charges after it admitted to laundering billions of dollars for Mexican drug cartels.
This and other criminal activities by those in the banking industry and on Wall Street prompted Elizabeth Warren to say two days ago:
Yes, they are shielded from the law. However, they have also been responsible for writing (or underwriting) our regulatory and financial laws which have propped up banks such as BoA, which has illegally defrauded its customers, and whose subprime lender, Countrywide, engaged in widespread mortgage fraud with BoA's knowledge.
Which brings us back to the beginning. The richest in our country continue to consolidate and grow their wealth as an increasing number of Americans slide into poverty or out of the middle class. And the consolidation of financial institutions into behemoth entities don't just symbolize what is happening, they are organically at the root of the problem.
If America has truly become an oligarchy, then the infographic above could be considered one of its banners. It is a banner which will continue to wave, I fear, until we hit a breaking point.
Where that point is, I do not know, nor do I know what the popular response will be when it is reached. However, one thing is certain: our current course will not be able to sustain itself without this country falling apart.
Perhaps that's what it will take.
--§--
David Harris-Gershon is author of the memoir What Do You Buy the Children of the Terrorist Who Tried to Kill Your Wife?, just out from Oneworld Publications.
CBS
November 30, 2012
WASHINGTON (CBS DC) – The median net worth of American households has dropped to a 43-year low as the lower and middle classes appear poorer and less stable than they have been since 1969.
According to a recent study by New York University economics professor Edward N. Wolff, median net worth is at the decades-low figure of $57,000 (in 2010 dollars). And as the numbers in his study reflect, the situation only appears worse when all the statistics are taken as a whole.
[Chart of changes between 1983 and 2010:]
According to Wolff, between 1983 and 2010, the percentage of households with less than $10,000 in assets (using constant 1995 dollars) rose from 29.7 percent to 37.1 percent. The “less than $10,000″ figure includes the numerous households that have no assets at all, or “negative assets,” which is otherwise known as “debt.”
Over that same period of time, the wealthiest 1 percent of American households increased their average wealth by 71 percent.
As noted by Daily Finance, from 1983 to 2010 the share of total wealth held by the richest 10 percent of American households increased from 68.2 percent to 76.7 percent. Meanwhile, all the rest of Americans lost financial ground.
An August Pew Research Center study found that many in the middle-class are divided on how they believe his gap widened.
Fully 85 percent of self-described middle-class adults say it is more difficult now than it was a decade ago for middle-class people to maintain their standard of living. Of those who feel this way, 62 percent say “a lot” of the blame lies with Congress, while 54 percent say the same about banks and financial institutions, 47 percent about large corporations, 44 percent about the Bush administration, 39 percent about foreign competition and 34 percent about the Obama administration.
Just 8 percent put “a lot” of blame on the middle class itself.
“This downbeat take on their economic situation comes at the end of a decade in which, for the first time since the end of World War II, mean family incomes declined for Americans in all income tiers,” the Pew Report stated. “But the middle-income tier—defined in this Pew Research analysis as all adults whose annual household income is two-thirds to double the national median —is the only one that also shrunk in size, a trend that has continued over the past four decades.”
Wolff’s focus on total wealth not only measures how much money a household brings in, but also the amount it accumulates. This latter number is very significant — economically secure households are generally more comfortable spending their disposable income, and are less likely to become a drag on the social safety net.
Stark Infographic of Too-Big-to-Fail Banks Represents 1% Consolidation in America
David Harris-Gershon (The Troubadour)
Daily Kos
Fri May 30, 2014
The four banks listed in the infographic below – CitiGroup, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, and Wells Fargo – have received nearly $93 billion in taxpayer funds ($92,849,517,353 to be exact) since the bailouts began in 2008.
While they make up a small percentage of the 940 bailout recipients which have, to date, received $611 billion dollars from American taxpayers, they represent a significant chunk of those funds. More importantly, their acquisition trajectories represent the consolidation of major banking institutions in America which have made them "too-big-to-fail," or so we've been told.
Click on the infographic above to enlarge.
The graphic above is not a statistical representation, as it does not display the relative sizes of those banks acquired, nor does it indicate which banks disappeared as a result of forced acquisitions. However, it does visually represent how banking institutions in this country are capable of not just dictating regulatory practices with their undeniable influence and size, but are able to get away with holding the country hostage after those criminal and unethical activities which brought our nation's economy to its knees and is serving to widen growing inequalities in America.
Regarding that latter point, income inequality is higher than its been since 1928, which is partly responsible for a crushing wealth gap in which the bottom 60 percent of Americans own only 3.5 percent of the country's wealth. We have a shrinking middle class with disappearing disposable incomes and an increasing number of Americans with no disposable incomes to speak of. Over 46 million Americans are below the poverty line, many of whom are employed but finding that "hard work is just not enough" anymore.
This is at a time in which behemoth financial institutions are getting larger, consolidating more and more wealth, and being not just financially protected by that consolidation – vacuuming up taxpayer funds from a drowning citizenry – but being legally protected as well.
In 2013, Eric Holder admitted that global financial institutions in the U.S. and abroad have become so large as to be above the law. This truth came into stark focus when the British bank HSBC, which does significant business in America, was neither shut down in the U.S. nor pursued with criminal charges after it admitted to laundering billions of dollars for Mexican drug cartels.
This and other criminal activities by those in the banking industry and on Wall Street prompted Elizabeth Warren to say two days ago:
A kid gets caught with a few ounces of pot and goes to jail, but a big bank breaks the law ... and no one even gets arrested.
Yes, they are shielded from the law. However, they have also been responsible for writing (or underwriting) our regulatory and financial laws which have propped up banks such as BoA, which has illegally defrauded its customers, and whose subprime lender, Countrywide, engaged in widespread mortgage fraud with BoA's knowledge.
Which brings us back to the beginning. The richest in our country continue to consolidate and grow their wealth as an increasing number of Americans slide into poverty or out of the middle class. And the consolidation of financial institutions into behemoth entities don't just symbolize what is happening, they are organically at the root of the problem.
If America has truly become an oligarchy, then the infographic above could be considered one of its banners. It is a banner which will continue to wave, I fear, until we hit a breaking point.
Where that point is, I do not know, nor do I know what the popular response will be when it is reached. However, one thing is certain: our current course will not be able to sustain itself without this country falling apart.
Perhaps that's what it will take.
--§--
David Harris-Gershon is author of the memoir What Do You Buy the Children of the Terrorist Who Tried to Kill Your Wife?, just out from Oneworld Publications.
Saturday, April 5, 2014
15 things everyone would know if there were a liberal media
Aug 07, 2013 15 things everyone would know if there were a liberal media
by akadjian
Daily Kos
...Gerrymandering.
When was the last time you saw a front page headline about gerrymandering?
Before the 2010 election, conservatives launched a plan to win control of state legislatures before the census. The idea was to be in power when national congressional districts were redrawn in order to fix them so Republicans would win a majority of districts.
The Redistricting Majority Project was hugely successful. In 2012, Barack Obama was elected President by nearly 3.5 million votes. In Congressional races, Democrats drew nearly 1.4 million more votes than Republicans yet Republicans won control of the House 234 seats to 201 seats.
How is this possible?
By pumping $30 million into state races to win the legislatures, Republicans redrew state maps in states such as Arizona, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Texas, Florida and Ohio to place all of the Democrats into just a few districts. In this manner, Democrats win heavily in a couple districts and lose the rest.
In North Carolina, the statewide vote was 51 percent Democrat and 49 percent Republican yet 9 Republicans won and only 4 Democrats.
Where is your coverage of this vote stealing, "liberal media"? You're willing to cover voter ID laws, why can't you cover real vote stealing?...
Wednesday, April 2, 2014
John Roberts court opens the gates for even more money to influence elections
This is no April Fool’s joke. Today, in a 5-4 decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court in “McCutcheon vs. Federal Election Commission,” went beyond “Citizen’s United” to strike down overall limits on how much an individual may contribute in one election cycle to innumerable federal candidates and to party committees. Overturning 40 years of national policy and 38 years of judicial precedent, the Court’s decision allows federal officeholders to solicit and individual donors to pour as much as $3.6 million directly into federal campaigns every election cycle – buying unparalleled personal influence in Washington and drowning out the voices of ordinary citizens. (It gives me no satisfaction that I testified against John Roberts at his confirmation hearing years ago.) This is the most brazen invitation to oligarchy in Supreme Court history.
In my view, we must amend the Constitution to establish once and for all that (1) money is not speech under the First Amendment, (2) corporations are not people, and (3) we the people have the right to set limits on how much money individuals and corporations can spend on elections. You with me?
California Senate suspends 3 Democratic lawmakers
"If you reward bad behavior, you will get more of it," Anderson said.
California Senate suspends 3 Democratic lawmakers
Associated Press
By DON THOMPSON
March 28, 2014
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — The California Senate voted Friday to suspend three lawmakers caught up in separate criminal cases after the latest one to be hauled into court refused to step down, the most serious house-cleaning action the chamber has taken in more than a century.
Friday's 28-1 vote in the 40-member chamber came amid one of the most severe ethical crises in modern times for the Legislature in the nation's most populous state. Later in the day, Gov. Jerry Brown also called on the three lawmakers to resign.
The Senate leadership said that before Friday, the chamber had never suspended a lawmaker in the institution's 164-year history, but it has taken the more serious step of expelling lawmakers, the last time in 1905. The Assembly speaker's office said that chamber has never suspended or expelled a lawmaker.
The resolution prevents Democratic Sens. Ron Calderon and Leland Yee, who face federal corruption charges, and Democratic Sen. Rod Wright, who is awaiting sentencing in a voter fraud case, from exercising any power of their office until the criminal cases against them have been resolved. Even so, they will continue receiving their $95,291 annual salaries.
Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg of Sacramento acknowledged the public criticism of the chamber, but he defended his leadership and the integrity of the 37 senators who have not run afoul of the law. Nevertheless, he said he has been shocked by having 7 percent of the chamber face felony charges this year, which will be his last as leader.
"One is an anomaly, two is a coincidence. Three? That's not what this Senate is about," Steinberg said to lawmakers before the vote.
Yee, who had championed gun-control legislation and bills targeting violent video games sold to minors, is the latest of the three senators to be charged. The San Francisco Democrat was charged in a federal criminal complaint this week with accepting bribes and coordinating an international gun-running operation.
Yee's attorney, Paul F. DeMeester, issued a statement immediately after the Senate vote saying suspension was "the right step for now" because it acknowledges the presumption of innocence. Representatives for Calderon and Wright said they would have no comment on the suspension vote.
Later Friday, in a statement issued by the Democratic governor's office, Brown weighed in for the first time since Yee's arrest.
"Given the extraordinary circumstances of these cases — and today's unprecedented suspensions — the best way to restore public confidence is for these Senators to resign," Brown said.
Steinberg noted that the Senate already has "intensive" ethics training for its lawmakers and staff.
"But there are some things, members, that you just can't teach," he said. "I know of no ethics class that teaches about the illegality or the danger of gun-running or other such sordid activities."
Steinberg also announced an unprecedented step of cancelling a Senate floor session in April for a mandatory ethics review, saying it is time for the Senate to "take a deeper look at our culture."
Senate officials will go office-by-office to emphasize ethical conduct and to ask staffers to come forward if they are aware of any unethical or potentially criminal activity by lawmakers or Senate staffers.
The lone lawmaker to vote against the resolution, SR38, was Republican Sen. Joel Anderson of Alpine. One senator was present but did not vote, and nine were absent, including all three senators who were suspended. One seat is vacant.
Anderson argued that all three should be expelled outright and said it was wrong that they should continue receiving their salaries when facing such serious charges.
"If you reward bad behavior, you will get more of it," Anderson said.
Calderon and Wright previously took leaves of absence, which also let them keep their pay. The California Constitution says lawmakers can lose their pay only if they are expelled or resign.
The suspensions drop Senate Democrats below the two-thirds majority they won in the last election, a supermajority that allowed them to act in all matters without needing support from Republicans.
The vote comes just days after federal authorities arrested Yee as part of a broader corruption probe centered on San Francisco's Chinatown district.
Yee was arrested and released on bond Wednesday following a series of raids in Sacramento and the San Francisco Bay Area. He is accused of accepting more than $42,000 to provide introductions, influence legislation and for introducing an undercover FBI agent to an arms trafficker, according to an FBI affidavit that says Yee was also known as "Uncle Leland."
Investigators said Yee discussed helping the agent get weapons, including shoulder-fired missiles, from a Muslim separatist group in the Philippines to help pay off campaign debts.
Wright was convicted of voter fraud and perjury and faces sentencing in May. Calderon faces federal charges for allegedly accepting $100,000 in bribes for friends and family in exchange for pushing certain bills.
Democratic Sen. Kevin de Leon of Los Angeles, who is expected to succeed Steinberg as Senate leader later this year, defended the chamber's reputation and noted that none of the bills Calderon pushed as a favor to those who were giving him cash passed the Senate.
That shows that the legislative system actually worked, he said.
"This is the best legislative institution in the country, hands down," de Leon said. "And we're going to get past it."
The only similar situation faced by the Legislature in recent memory is the so-called "Shrimpscam" investigation in 1985, in which federal agents went undercover and posed as representatives of a phony shrimp-processing company. Five lawmakers resigned and went to prison for taking bribes in the FBI sting operation.
The Senate last expelled lawmakers in 1905, when four senators were ousted for malfeasance involving bribery. Only one other senator has been expelled. In 1850 during the first legislative session after California gained statehood, a senator violated Senate rules by failing to show up for sessions for more than 10 days, according to Steinberg's office.
The 80-member Assembly has never expelled a member and considered doing so only once, officials said. That was in 1899, when an expulsion vote failed against Howard E. Wright, who represented Alameda County. Wright had been indicted on bribery charges but was not convicted.
___ Associated Press writer Tom Verdin contributed to this report.
California Senate suspends 3 Democratic lawmakers
Associated Press
By DON THOMPSON
March 28, 2014
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — The California Senate voted Friday to suspend three lawmakers caught up in separate criminal cases after the latest one to be hauled into court refused to step down, the most serious house-cleaning action the chamber has taken in more than a century.
Friday's 28-1 vote in the 40-member chamber came amid one of the most severe ethical crises in modern times for the Legislature in the nation's most populous state. Later in the day, Gov. Jerry Brown also called on the three lawmakers to resign.
The Senate leadership said that before Friday, the chamber had never suspended a lawmaker in the institution's 164-year history, but it has taken the more serious step of expelling lawmakers, the last time in 1905. The Assembly speaker's office said that chamber has never suspended or expelled a lawmaker.
The resolution prevents Democratic Sens. Ron Calderon and Leland Yee, who face federal corruption charges, and Democratic Sen. Rod Wright, who is awaiting sentencing in a voter fraud case, from exercising any power of their office until the criminal cases against them have been resolved. Even so, they will continue receiving their $95,291 annual salaries.
Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg of Sacramento acknowledged the public criticism of the chamber, but he defended his leadership and the integrity of the 37 senators who have not run afoul of the law. Nevertheless, he said he has been shocked by having 7 percent of the chamber face felony charges this year, which will be his last as leader.
"One is an anomaly, two is a coincidence. Three? That's not what this Senate is about," Steinberg said to lawmakers before the vote.
Yee, who had championed gun-control legislation and bills targeting violent video games sold to minors, is the latest of the three senators to be charged. The San Francisco Democrat was charged in a federal criminal complaint this week with accepting bribes and coordinating an international gun-running operation.
Yee's attorney, Paul F. DeMeester, issued a statement immediately after the Senate vote saying suspension was "the right step for now" because it acknowledges the presumption of innocence. Representatives for Calderon and Wright said they would have no comment on the suspension vote.
Later Friday, in a statement issued by the Democratic governor's office, Brown weighed in for the first time since Yee's arrest.
"Given the extraordinary circumstances of these cases — and today's unprecedented suspensions — the best way to restore public confidence is for these Senators to resign," Brown said.
Steinberg noted that the Senate already has "intensive" ethics training for its lawmakers and staff.
"But there are some things, members, that you just can't teach," he said. "I know of no ethics class that teaches about the illegality or the danger of gun-running or other such sordid activities."
Steinberg also announced an unprecedented step of cancelling a Senate floor session in April for a mandatory ethics review, saying it is time for the Senate to "take a deeper look at our culture."
Senate officials will go office-by-office to emphasize ethical conduct and to ask staffers to come forward if they are aware of any unethical or potentially criminal activity by lawmakers or Senate staffers.
The lone lawmaker to vote against the resolution, SR38, was Republican Sen. Joel Anderson of Alpine. One senator was present but did not vote, and nine were absent, including all three senators who were suspended. One seat is vacant.
Anderson argued that all three should be expelled outright and said it was wrong that they should continue receiving their salaries when facing such serious charges.
"If you reward bad behavior, you will get more of it," Anderson said.
Calderon and Wright previously took leaves of absence, which also let them keep their pay. The California Constitution says lawmakers can lose their pay only if they are expelled or resign.
The suspensions drop Senate Democrats below the two-thirds majority they won in the last election, a supermajority that allowed them to act in all matters without needing support from Republicans.
The vote comes just days after federal authorities arrested Yee as part of a broader corruption probe centered on San Francisco's Chinatown district.
Yee was arrested and released on bond Wednesday following a series of raids in Sacramento and the San Francisco Bay Area. He is accused of accepting more than $42,000 to provide introductions, influence legislation and for introducing an undercover FBI agent to an arms trafficker, according to an FBI affidavit that says Yee was also known as "Uncle Leland."
Investigators said Yee discussed helping the agent get weapons, including shoulder-fired missiles, from a Muslim separatist group in the Philippines to help pay off campaign debts.
Wright was convicted of voter fraud and perjury and faces sentencing in May. Calderon faces federal charges for allegedly accepting $100,000 in bribes for friends and family in exchange for pushing certain bills.
Democratic Sen. Kevin de Leon of Los Angeles, who is expected to succeed Steinberg as Senate leader later this year, defended the chamber's reputation and noted that none of the bills Calderon pushed as a favor to those who were giving him cash passed the Senate.
That shows that the legislative system actually worked, he said.
"This is the best legislative institution in the country, hands down," de Leon said. "And we're going to get past it."
The only similar situation faced by the Legislature in recent memory is the so-called "Shrimpscam" investigation in 1985, in which federal agents went undercover and posed as representatives of a phony shrimp-processing company. Five lawmakers resigned and went to prison for taking bribes in the FBI sting operation.
The Senate last expelled lawmakers in 1905, when four senators were ousted for malfeasance involving bribery. Only one other senator has been expelled. In 1850 during the first legislative session after California gained statehood, a senator violated Senate rules by failing to show up for sessions for more than 10 days, according to Steinberg's office.
The 80-member Assembly has never expelled a member and considered doing so only once, officials said. That was in 1899, when an expulsion vote failed against Howard E. Wright, who represented Alameda County. Wright had been indicted on bribery charges but was not convicted.
___ Associated Press writer Tom Verdin contributed to this report.
Tuesday, February 25, 2014
Thursday, January 30, 2014
CBS Chair and CEO Leslie Moonves is the highest paid American; Tom Perkins Apologizes on Bloomberg TV
"...[David Simon] is no longer the highest paid American. The title now goes to CBS Chair and CEO Leslie Moonves, who’s getting a salary of $60 million, and will always be remembered by us as the man who said of rampant political spending, 'Super PACs may be bad for America, but they’re very good for CBS.'"
Advice to Perkins: Time to Shut Up!
January 30, 2014
by Bill Moyers and Michael Winship
Moyers and Company
There’s a rule of thumb in cyberspace etiquette known as Godwin’s Law, named after Mike Godwin, the Internet lawyer and activist who first came up with it. A variation of that law boils down to this: He who first compares the other side to Nazis loses, and the conversation is at an end. Unless you’re billionaire Tom Perkins, who seems dedicated to digging a deeper and deeper hole for himself.
By now you’re probably heard about Perkins’s infamous letter to The Wall Street Journal (whose editorial page is the rich man’s Pravda of class warfare) in which he wrote, “I would call attention to the parallels of fascist Nazi Germany to its war on its ‘one percent,’ namely its Jews, to the progressive war on the American one percent, namely the ‘rich…’ This is a very dangerous drift in our American thinking. Kristallnacht was unthinkable in 1930; is its descendant ‘progressive’ radicalism unthinkable now?”
It’s astonishing how ignorant (not to mention crude and cruel) the very rich can be. Surely, one of his well-paid retainers could have reminded Mr. Perkins that Kristallnacht was the opening salvo in Hitler’s extermination of the Jews, the “night of broken glass” in 1938 Germany and Austria when nearly a hundred Jews were murdered, 30,000 were sent to concentration camps, and synagogues and Jewish-owned business were looted and destroyed, many of them burned to the ground. If Perkins thought his puny point survived the outrageous exaggeration, he was sadly mistaken.
Nonetheless, after a stunned world responded, venture capitalist Perkins went on Bloomberg TV to apologize for using the word “Kristallnacht” but not for the sentiment of his letter. “I don’t regret the message at all,” he said. “Anytime the majority starts to demonize the minority, no matter what it is, it’s wrong and dangerous and no good comes from it.”
Perkins also said that he has family “living in trailer parks,” but bragged like some cackling James Bond villain that he owns “an airplane that flies underwater” and a wristwatch that “could buy a six-pack of Rolexes.” That watch, on prominent display during the Bloomberg interview, is a Richard Mille, a charming little timepiece that can retail for more than $300,000. At that price, a watch shouldn’t just tell you the time, it should allow you to travel through it, perhaps back to the Gilded Age or Versailles in 1789, just as the tumbrils rolled in. Here in the office, our $85 Timex and Seiko watches have crossed their hands over their faces in shame.
That Richard Mille watch triggered TV producer David Simon’s comment on Moyers & Company (full show airing next week) that it should be sold and used to open drug treatment centers in Baltimore, the city where Simon was a crime reporter and which served as the backdrop and central character of his classic HBO series The Wire. You can watch the complete excerpt here:
By the way, the other David Simon to whom ours refers is no longer the highest paid American. The title now goes to CBS Chair and CEO Leslie Moonves, who’s getting a salary of $60 million, and will always be remembered by us as the man who said of rampant political spending, “Super PACs may be bad for America, but they’re very good for CBS.”
Advice to Perkins: Time to Shut Up!
January 30, 2014
by Bill Moyers and Michael Winship
Moyers and Company
There’s a rule of thumb in cyberspace etiquette known as Godwin’s Law, named after Mike Godwin, the Internet lawyer and activist who first came up with it. A variation of that law boils down to this: He who first compares the other side to Nazis loses, and the conversation is at an end. Unless you’re billionaire Tom Perkins, who seems dedicated to digging a deeper and deeper hole for himself.
By now you’re probably heard about Perkins’s infamous letter to The Wall Street Journal (whose editorial page is the rich man’s Pravda of class warfare) in which he wrote, “I would call attention to the parallels of fascist Nazi Germany to its war on its ‘one percent,’ namely its Jews, to the progressive war on the American one percent, namely the ‘rich…’ This is a very dangerous drift in our American thinking. Kristallnacht was unthinkable in 1930; is its descendant ‘progressive’ radicalism unthinkable now?”
It’s astonishing how ignorant (not to mention crude and cruel) the very rich can be. Surely, one of his well-paid retainers could have reminded Mr. Perkins that Kristallnacht was the opening salvo in Hitler’s extermination of the Jews, the “night of broken glass” in 1938 Germany and Austria when nearly a hundred Jews were murdered, 30,000 were sent to concentration camps, and synagogues and Jewish-owned business were looted and destroyed, many of them burned to the ground. If Perkins thought his puny point survived the outrageous exaggeration, he was sadly mistaken.
Nonetheless, after a stunned world responded, venture capitalist Perkins went on Bloomberg TV to apologize for using the word “Kristallnacht” but not for the sentiment of his letter. “I don’t regret the message at all,” he said. “Anytime the majority starts to demonize the minority, no matter what it is, it’s wrong and dangerous and no good comes from it.”
Perkins also said that he has family “living in trailer parks,” but bragged like some cackling James Bond villain that he owns “an airplane that flies underwater” and a wristwatch that “could buy a six-pack of Rolexes.” That watch, on prominent display during the Bloomberg interview, is a Richard Mille, a charming little timepiece that can retail for more than $300,000. At that price, a watch shouldn’t just tell you the time, it should allow you to travel through it, perhaps back to the Gilded Age or Versailles in 1789, just as the tumbrils rolled in. Here in the office, our $85 Timex and Seiko watches have crossed their hands over their faces in shame.
That Richard Mille watch triggered TV producer David Simon’s comment on Moyers & Company (full show airing next week) that it should be sold and used to open drug treatment centers in Baltimore, the city where Simon was a crime reporter and which served as the backdrop and central character of his classic HBO series The Wire. You can watch the complete excerpt here:
By the way, the other David Simon to whom ours refers is no longer the highest paid American. The title now goes to CBS Chair and CEO Leslie Moonves, who’s getting a salary of $60 million, and will always be remembered by us as the man who said of rampant political spending, “Super PACs may be bad for America, but they’re very good for CBS.”
Tuesday, January 28, 2014
Choose to take the 'for sale' sign off our democracy
Choose to take the 'for sale' sign off our democracy
Overturning Citizens United
Jan. 28, 2014
People For the American Way
Choose to take the 'for sale' sign off our democracy!
Citizens United
...[T]he problem of big money in elections is so bad, we must amend the Constitution to fix it. The Supreme Court, with decisions like Citizens United v. FEC, has left us no choice.
That's why I'm asking you to support PFAW's Government By the People campaign by renewing your 2014 membership with a much-needed contribution today.
The choice is yours, but I hope you choose to be part of this growing national movement by supporting our work.
16 states and hundreds of localities have passed resolutions supporting an amendment to save our democracy and get big money out...
Now, we're organizing students across the country to pass similar resolutions on their campuses...
And our efforts have already helped get nearly 150 members of Congress to endorse the amendment strategy...
It's incredibly important that we keep up this progress towards our ultimate goal of a constitutional amendment.
Click here to make a secure online renewal contribution now and I will put your generous gift to work immediately to support these efforts and more.
The Koch brothers and Tea Party groups are already on the air in key battleground states trying to use lies about Obamacare to smear Democratic incumbents. They've spent tens of millions of dollars on the 2014 races already, and we're still in the first month of the year.
We'll fight right-wing extremists every step of the way, and work to defeat Tea Party Republicans at the polls, but we also must keep up intense and sustained efforts to get big money OUT of our elections.v Will you support this work with a donation to renew your PFAW membership right now?
Whether it's with a picket sign in the streets of Chicago, marching against the influence of corporate lobbyists, sending activists to town halls and asking members of Congress to pledge their support in our fight to get big money out of our democracy, or with a clipboard, going to door to door to get a state resolution passed, we're not stopping.
We must restore the power in our democracy to where it belongs: with the voter.
Thank you for all that you have done and will continue to do.
Sincerely,
Michael B. Keegan signature
Michael Keegan, President
P.S. Supreme Court watchers are waiting for the next decision day in a few weeks to see if the Court's decision in McCutcheon v. FEC is essentially "Citizens United II." Thanks to arguments filed by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, it's possible that the Court could dismantle what few remaining campaign finance restrictions we have. You can imagine how earth-shattering that result would be -- eliminating any barriers to elected officials being wholly owned, bought and paid for, by ultra-wealthy donors.
With a right-wing majority Court set on undermining our democracy, we must look to constitutional remedies. And we need your help to get there.
Overturning Citizens United
Jan. 28, 2014
People For the American Way
Choose to take the 'for sale' sign off our democracy!
Citizens United
...[T]he problem of big money in elections is so bad, we must amend the Constitution to fix it. The Supreme Court, with decisions like Citizens United v. FEC, has left us no choice.
That's why I'm asking you to support PFAW's Government By the People campaign by renewing your 2014 membership with a much-needed contribution today.
The choice is yours, but I hope you choose to be part of this growing national movement by supporting our work.
16 states and hundreds of localities have passed resolutions supporting an amendment to save our democracy and get big money out...
Now, we're organizing students across the country to pass similar resolutions on their campuses...
And our efforts have already helped get nearly 150 members of Congress to endorse the amendment strategy...
It's incredibly important that we keep up this progress towards our ultimate goal of a constitutional amendment.
Click here to make a secure online renewal contribution now and I will put your generous gift to work immediately to support these efforts and more.
The Koch brothers and Tea Party groups are already on the air in key battleground states trying to use lies about Obamacare to smear Democratic incumbents. They've spent tens of millions of dollars on the 2014 races already, and we're still in the first month of the year.
We'll fight right-wing extremists every step of the way, and work to defeat Tea Party Republicans at the polls, but we also must keep up intense and sustained efforts to get big money OUT of our elections.v Will you support this work with a donation to renew your PFAW membership right now?
Whether it's with a picket sign in the streets of Chicago, marching against the influence of corporate lobbyists, sending activists to town halls and asking members of Congress to pledge their support in our fight to get big money out of our democracy, or with a clipboard, going to door to door to get a state resolution passed, we're not stopping.
We must restore the power in our democracy to where it belongs: with the voter.
Thank you for all that you have done and will continue to do.
Sincerely,
Michael B. Keegan signature
Michael Keegan, President
P.S. Supreme Court watchers are waiting for the next decision day in a few weeks to see if the Court's decision in McCutcheon v. FEC is essentially "Citizens United II." Thanks to arguments filed by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, it's possible that the Court could dismantle what few remaining campaign finance restrictions we have. You can imagine how earth-shattering that result would be -- eliminating any barriers to elected officials being wholly owned, bought and paid for, by ultra-wealthy donors.
With a right-wing majority Court set on undermining our democracy, we must look to constitutional remedies. And we need your help to get there.
Monday, January 13, 2014
Rich GOP Donor Gets Lawmaker to Draft a Bill to Lower His Child Support Payments
In 2010, Eisenga donated $10,000 to Kleefisch and his wife, Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch, according to the Journal Sentinel. Eisenga also donated $15,000 to Republican Gov. Scott Walker.
Rich GOP Donor Gets Lawmaker to Draft a Bill to Lower His Child Support Payments
By Molly Redden
Mother Jones
Jan. 13, 2014
After Michael Eisenga, a wealthy GOP donor and Wisconsin business owner, failed to convince several courts to lower his child support payments, he came up with an inventive plan B—he recruited a Republican state legislator to rewrite Wisconsin law in his favor.
A set of documents unearthed Saturday by the Wisconsin State Journal shows Eisenga and his lawyer, William Smiley, supplying detailed instructions to Republican state Rep. Joel Kleefisch on how to word legislation capping child support payments from the wealthy. Kleefisch began work on the legislation last fall, weeks after an appeals court rejected Eisenga's attempts to lower his child support payments.
For example, in a September 13 letter, a drafting lawyer with Wisconsin's legislative services bureau complained to a Kleefisch aide, "It's hard to fashion a general principle that will apply to only one situation."
According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Eisenga's current child support payments for the three children he has with his ex-wife are set at $216,000 a year. (Per the couple's prenuptial agreement, the divorce settlement left his $30 million in assets untouched.)
Current law instructs judges to calculate child support as a percentage of income, with no cap and the option to include assets. Under Kleefisch's bill, which making its way through the Wisconsin statehouse, payments would top out at $150,000 annually, and judges would be prohibited from taking assets into account when determining child support. The bill also includes language that would allow Eisenga to restart court proceedings over his child support payments, as it requires courts to slash such payments if they are 10 percent higher than they would be under the new cap.
In 2010, Eisenga donated $10,000 to Kleefisch and his wife, Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch, according to the Journal Sentinel. Eisenga also donated $15,000 to Republican Gov. Scott Walker.
The drafting documents, available on the Wisconsin legislature's website, leave little not doubt that the bill was written to Eisenga's specifications. According to the documents, on September 5, Eisenga's lawyer briefed him on changes he was suggesting to a draft of Kleefisch's bill. "We focused only on the portion that would require the court to modify your child support order based solely on the passage of the bill," Smiley wrote. Eisenga then forwarded that letter to Kleefisch and one of his aides, saying, "Please have the drafter make these SPECIFIC changes to the bill." The next day, Kleefisch's aide forwarded the letter to the legislative lawyer drafting the bill.
A hearing for the bill is scheduled Wednesday before the Assembly Family Law Committee.
Eisenga and Smiley declined to speak to local news outlets about their emails with Kleefisch. On Saturday, Kleefisch told the Journal, "I do a gamut of legislation with the help and assistance of many, many constituents, and whether they gave a contribution or not has not made a difference."
Rich GOP Donor Gets Lawmaker to Draft a Bill to Lower His Child Support Payments
By Molly Redden
Mother Jones
Jan. 13, 2014
After Michael Eisenga, a wealthy GOP donor and Wisconsin business owner, failed to convince several courts to lower his child support payments, he came up with an inventive plan B—he recruited a Republican state legislator to rewrite Wisconsin law in his favor.
A set of documents unearthed Saturday by the Wisconsin State Journal shows Eisenga and his lawyer, William Smiley, supplying detailed instructions to Republican state Rep. Joel Kleefisch on how to word legislation capping child support payments from the wealthy. Kleefisch began work on the legislation last fall, weeks after an appeals court rejected Eisenga's attempts to lower his child support payments.
For example, in a September 13 letter, a drafting lawyer with Wisconsin's legislative services bureau complained to a Kleefisch aide, "It's hard to fashion a general principle that will apply to only one situation."
According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Eisenga's current child support payments for the three children he has with his ex-wife are set at $216,000 a year. (Per the couple's prenuptial agreement, the divorce settlement left his $30 million in assets untouched.)
Current law instructs judges to calculate child support as a percentage of income, with no cap and the option to include assets. Under Kleefisch's bill, which making its way through the Wisconsin statehouse, payments would top out at $150,000 annually, and judges would be prohibited from taking assets into account when determining child support. The bill also includes language that would allow Eisenga to restart court proceedings over his child support payments, as it requires courts to slash such payments if they are 10 percent higher than they would be under the new cap.
In 2010, Eisenga donated $10,000 to Kleefisch and his wife, Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch, according to the Journal Sentinel. Eisenga also donated $15,000 to Republican Gov. Scott Walker.
The drafting documents, available on the Wisconsin legislature's website, leave little not doubt that the bill was written to Eisenga's specifications. According to the documents, on September 5, Eisenga's lawyer briefed him on changes he was suggesting to a draft of Kleefisch's bill. "We focused only on the portion that would require the court to modify your child support order based solely on the passage of the bill," Smiley wrote. Eisenga then forwarded that letter to Kleefisch and one of his aides, saying, "Please have the drafter make these SPECIFIC changes to the bill." The next day, Kleefisch's aide forwarded the letter to the legislative lawyer drafting the bill.
A hearing for the bill is scheduled Wednesday before the Assembly Family Law Committee.
Eisenga and Smiley declined to speak to local news outlets about their emails with Kleefisch. On Saturday, Kleefisch told the Journal, "I do a gamut of legislation with the help and assistance of many, many constituents, and whether they gave a contribution or not has not made a difference."
Thursday, July 25, 2013
JPMorgan in Talks to Settle Energy Manipulation Case for $500 Million
JPMorgan in Talks to Settle Energy Manipulation Case for $500 Million
By BEN PROTESS and JESSICA SILVER-GREENBERG
NYT
July 17, 2013
It is unclear whether FERC will pursue a separate action against Blythe Masters, a senior JPMorgan executive.
JPMorgan Chase, the Wall Street giant whose reputation in Washington has eroded in a matter of months, is now moving to avert a showdown over accusations that it manipulated energy prices.
The nation’s largest bank, which has previously clashed with its regulators, is seeking to settle with the federal agency that oversees the energy markets, according to people briefed on the matter. The regulator, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, found that JPMorgan devised “manipulative schemes” that transformed “money-losing power plants into powerful profit centers,” a commission document said.
The potential deal, the people said, is expected to cost the bank about $500 million, a record for the commission, which has adopted a harder line with Wall Street over the last year. For JPMorgan, which reported a record $6.5 billion quarterly profit last week, the fine will hardly dent the bottom line.
The accusations against JPMorgan surfaced this spring in the confidential commission document, reviewed by The New York Times, that outlined a pattern of illegal trading in the California and Michigan electric markets. The document, a warning that investigators would recommend that the agency pursue civil charges, also claimed that a senior JPMorgan executive, Blythe Masters, gave “false and misleading statements” under oath.
It is unclear whether Ms. Masters would be included in the potential settlement, but people close to her said that the regulator was unlikely to file a separate action against her. Initially, investigators planned to recommend that the agency hold Ms. Masters and three of her employees “individually liable,” a move that would have cast a shadow over her long career on Wall Street, where she is known for developing complex financial instruments.
While the bank still disputes the accusations, the recent settlement talks signal a shift in strategy for JPMorgan, which previously declared its intention “to vigorously defend” itself. Other banks, including Barclays, are fighting the commission in similar cases, casting the agency as overly aggressive. A settlement with JPMorgan could undermine Wall Street’s counterattacks and pave the way for more settlements.
With the recent overture, JPMorgan appears to have taken a more conciliatory approach to Washington broadly, as it works to mend relationships with regulatory agencies. Its new tack, advocated by top JPMorgan lawyers, underscores the bank’s realization that it was swiftly losing credibility in Washington.
Within regulatory circles, JPMorgan had become known as something of a bully, a bank quick to strike a combative tone with regulators. In a Congressional report examining a $6 billion trading loss the bank sustained last year, investigators faulted it for briefly withholding documents from regulators. The energy markets regulator also accused the bank of stonewalling investigators.
A settlement with the commission would enable JPMorgan to resolve the embarrassing accusations without fighting a lengthy legal battle. It also would allow the bank to focus on its other legal woes as it remains caught in the cross hairs of at least eight other federal offices. In addition to inquiries stemming from the trading loss, banking regulators are weighing enforcement actions against the bank for the way it collected credit card debt.
Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan’s chief executive who was once known as Washington’s favorite banker, acknowledged in his annual letter to shareholders that “unfortunately, we expect we will have more” enforcement actions in “the coming months.” He apologized for letting “our regulators down” and vowed to “do all the work necessary to complete the needed improvements.”
To reinforce the conciliatory approach, the bank has more readily dispatched executives to Washington. It also committed resources to bolster internal controls, a measure that could appease regulators.
The people briefed on the matter, who spoke on the condition that they not be named, cautioned that JPMorgan and the energy regulator were still negotiating a potential fine. The terms are subject to change. Any action recommended by investigators — settlement or otherwise — requires approval by a majority of the five-member energy commission.
The prospect of a deal with JPMorgan Chase was reported earlier by The Wall Street Journal.
A spokeswoman for the bank declined to comment. The commission also declined to comment.
JPMorgan’s run-in with the energy regulator escalated in March, when investigators sent the document outlining the findings of their inquiry. In response, the bank issued a lengthy response to the accusations in mid-May, the people briefed on the matter said, ultimately spurring settlement talks in recent weeks.
For the energy regulator, a settlement would be the latest in a string of actions against big banks. On Tuesday, the commission ordered Barclays to pay a $470 million penalty for suspected manipulation of energy markets in California and other Western states by some of its traders. The bank is fighting the charges.
Like Barclays, JPMorgan faces accusations stemming from its rights to sell electricity from power plants. The rights come from assets the bank accumulated in the 2008 takeover of Bear Stearns.
But soon after the acquisition, the plants became a losing business that relied on “inefficient” and outdated technology. Under “pressure to generate large profits,” investigators said in the March document, traders in Houston devised a solution. Adopting eight different “schemes” between September 2010 and June 2011, the traders offered the energy at prices “calculated to falsely appear attractive” to state energy authorities. The effort prompted authorities in California and Michigan to pay about $83 million in “excessive” payments to JPMorgan, the investigators said.
In a 2012 filing in federal court, the energy regulator took aim at JPMorgan for attempting to thwart the investigation. The bank, the regulator said, refused to comply with a subpoena seeking e-mails that JPMorgan claimed were confidential because they contained private conversations between the bank and its lawyers.
In the March document, the investigators elaborated on the bank’s pushback. The 70-page document said that the bank “planned and executed a systematic cover-up” of documents that exposed the trading strategy, including profit and loss statements.
The investigators also traced some of the obfuscating to Ms. Masters. After California authorities began to object to the bank’s trading strategy, Ms. Masters “personally participated in JPMorgan’s efforts to block” the state authorities “from understanding the reasons behind JPMorgan’s bidding schemes,” the regulator, known as FERC, said.
The investigators also cited an April 2011 e-mail in which Ms. Masters ordered a “rewrite” of an internal document that questioned whether the bank had skirted the law. The new wording: “JPMorgan does not believe that it violated FERC’s policies.”
By BEN PROTESS and JESSICA SILVER-GREENBERG
NYT
July 17, 2013
It is unclear whether FERC will pursue a separate action against Blythe Masters, a senior JPMorgan executive.
JPMorgan Chase, the Wall Street giant whose reputation in Washington has eroded in a matter of months, is now moving to avert a showdown over accusations that it manipulated energy prices.
The nation’s largest bank, which has previously clashed with its regulators, is seeking to settle with the federal agency that oversees the energy markets, according to people briefed on the matter. The regulator, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, found that JPMorgan devised “manipulative schemes” that transformed “money-losing power plants into powerful profit centers,” a commission document said.
The potential deal, the people said, is expected to cost the bank about $500 million, a record for the commission, which has adopted a harder line with Wall Street over the last year. For JPMorgan, which reported a record $6.5 billion quarterly profit last week, the fine will hardly dent the bottom line.
The accusations against JPMorgan surfaced this spring in the confidential commission document, reviewed by The New York Times, that outlined a pattern of illegal trading in the California and Michigan electric markets. The document, a warning that investigators would recommend that the agency pursue civil charges, also claimed that a senior JPMorgan executive, Blythe Masters, gave “false and misleading statements” under oath.
It is unclear whether Ms. Masters would be included in the potential settlement, but people close to her said that the regulator was unlikely to file a separate action against her. Initially, investigators planned to recommend that the agency hold Ms. Masters and three of her employees “individually liable,” a move that would have cast a shadow over her long career on Wall Street, where she is known for developing complex financial instruments.
While the bank still disputes the accusations, the recent settlement talks signal a shift in strategy for JPMorgan, which previously declared its intention “to vigorously defend” itself. Other banks, including Barclays, are fighting the commission in similar cases, casting the agency as overly aggressive. A settlement with JPMorgan could undermine Wall Street’s counterattacks and pave the way for more settlements.
With the recent overture, JPMorgan appears to have taken a more conciliatory approach to Washington broadly, as it works to mend relationships with regulatory agencies. Its new tack, advocated by top JPMorgan lawyers, underscores the bank’s realization that it was swiftly losing credibility in Washington.
Within regulatory circles, JPMorgan had become known as something of a bully, a bank quick to strike a combative tone with regulators. In a Congressional report examining a $6 billion trading loss the bank sustained last year, investigators faulted it for briefly withholding documents from regulators. The energy markets regulator also accused the bank of stonewalling investigators.
A settlement with the commission would enable JPMorgan to resolve the embarrassing accusations without fighting a lengthy legal battle. It also would allow the bank to focus on its other legal woes as it remains caught in the cross hairs of at least eight other federal offices. In addition to inquiries stemming from the trading loss, banking regulators are weighing enforcement actions against the bank for the way it collected credit card debt.
Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan’s chief executive who was once known as Washington’s favorite banker, acknowledged in his annual letter to shareholders that “unfortunately, we expect we will have more” enforcement actions in “the coming months.” He apologized for letting “our regulators down” and vowed to “do all the work necessary to complete the needed improvements.”
To reinforce the conciliatory approach, the bank has more readily dispatched executives to Washington. It also committed resources to bolster internal controls, a measure that could appease regulators.
The people briefed on the matter, who spoke on the condition that they not be named, cautioned that JPMorgan and the energy regulator were still negotiating a potential fine. The terms are subject to change. Any action recommended by investigators — settlement or otherwise — requires approval by a majority of the five-member energy commission.
The prospect of a deal with JPMorgan Chase was reported earlier by The Wall Street Journal.
A spokeswoman for the bank declined to comment. The commission also declined to comment.
JPMorgan’s run-in with the energy regulator escalated in March, when investigators sent the document outlining the findings of their inquiry. In response, the bank issued a lengthy response to the accusations in mid-May, the people briefed on the matter said, ultimately spurring settlement talks in recent weeks.
For the energy regulator, a settlement would be the latest in a string of actions against big banks. On Tuesday, the commission ordered Barclays to pay a $470 million penalty for suspected manipulation of energy markets in California and other Western states by some of its traders. The bank is fighting the charges.
Like Barclays, JPMorgan faces accusations stemming from its rights to sell electricity from power plants. The rights come from assets the bank accumulated in the 2008 takeover of Bear Stearns.
But soon after the acquisition, the plants became a losing business that relied on “inefficient” and outdated technology. Under “pressure to generate large profits,” investigators said in the March document, traders in Houston devised a solution. Adopting eight different “schemes” between September 2010 and June 2011, the traders offered the energy at prices “calculated to falsely appear attractive” to state energy authorities. The effort prompted authorities in California and Michigan to pay about $83 million in “excessive” payments to JPMorgan, the investigators said.
In a 2012 filing in federal court, the energy regulator took aim at JPMorgan for attempting to thwart the investigation. The bank, the regulator said, refused to comply with a subpoena seeking e-mails that JPMorgan claimed were confidential because they contained private conversations between the bank and its lawyers.
In the March document, the investigators elaborated on the bank’s pushback. The 70-page document said that the bank “planned and executed a systematic cover-up” of documents that exposed the trading strategy, including profit and loss statements.
The investigators also traced some of the obfuscating to Ms. Masters. After California authorities began to object to the bank’s trading strategy, Ms. Masters “personally participated in JPMorgan’s efforts to block” the state authorities “from understanding the reasons behind JPMorgan’s bidding schemes,” the regulator, known as FERC, said.
The investigators also cited an April 2011 e-mail in which Ms. Masters ordered a “rewrite” of an internal document that questioned whether the bank had skirted the law. The new wording: “JPMorgan does not believe that it violated FERC’s policies.”
SAC: Steve Cohen’s (Allegedly) Corrupt “Information Gathering Machine”
Steve Cohen’s (Allegedly) Corrupt “Information Gathering Machine”
By Charles Gasparino
Time
July 25, 2013
When I first met Steve Cohen back in 1999, we were discussing SAC’s vaunted trading strategies, the ones that made his hedge fund one of the most successful in the finance world and burnished Cohen’s rep as one of the world’s best traders.
I said that based on my reporting — I was working for the Wall Street Journal at the time — Cohen started SAC in 1992 with a technique that wasn’t that much different than a day trader: He was trading huge blocks of stock by looking for “teenies,” or small price increments, that he could magnify into massive returns because of the sheer size of his trades.
It was the only time Cohen seemed angered during our discussion, as I recall. “No,” he shot back emphatically, “we employ real trading strategies around here. We do research.” Cohen went on to explain how his firm, SAC, had transformed itself into something much more than a day-trading sweat shop — it was now, he claimed, essentially the biggest and best information gathering machine in the world.
That information machine has now been deemed by the U.S. Department of Justice to be a criminal enterprise. Today’s indictment, filed in Manhattan federal court, of the once mighty hedge fund accuses SAC a multi-year “scheme” to profit from the use of illegal tips—also known as inside information.
It’s interesting to note that, according to prosecutors, the alleged scheme began in 1999—around the time Cohen was boasting of the firm’s new information edge. It’s also interesting to note that while Cohen himself wasn’t charged in the indictment, references to him in the documents are everywhere, which means all those headlines of Cohen himself being “out of the woods” are probably wrong.
In other words, don’t be surprised if you see an indictment of Cohen in the coming weeks as well.
If you don’t believe me, read the indictment. “The SAC Owner had sole trading discretion over his portfolio and made these decisions principally based on trading recommendations from SAC [portfolio managers],” it says. “In particular, at all relevant times the SAC Owner required each [portfolio manager] to share ‘high conviction’ investment ideas–i.e., the investment recommendations in which the SAC [portfolio managers] had the greatest confidence–with the SAC Owner. In fact, providing such ideas to the SAC Owner was an express part of a SAC PM’s duties and was emphasized to SAC [portfolio managers] in the hiring process and once working at SAC.”
As my book about the Fed’s relentless pursuit of Cohen, Circle of Friends, explains, the Feds believe having a “high conviction” investment idea is code for trading on material, non-public information, a.k.a. insider trading. They also believe almost no major trade gets done inside SAC without Cohen’s blessing — and based on my sources inside the government, they believe it’s just a matter of time before they connect the dots to Cohen himself.
I should point out that Cohen maintains his innocence and that the information machine he created runs for the most part on information and research of the legal variety. His people tell me the few bad apples at SAC that have used inside information — as many as 9 former or current company executives have been implicated during the insider trading crackdown — are anomalies.
The Feds, of course, feel they have proof that SAC, under Cohen’s watch, is a dirty shop.
One thing is certain: The mounting pressure from the government probe that’s been investigating the firm since at least 2007 is taking its toll on Cohen, both professionally and personally. Money from outside investors has been fleeing the fund for months as the government’s scrutiny has intensified.
With the indictment, SAC is basically being put out of business, though Cohen could still conceivably manage his own personal fortune of around $9 billion. But the Feds are looking for a chunk of that as well. The indictment says the scheme occurred over an 11-year period and that SAC has to give back its illegal profits.
Since most of the money now in SAC in Cohen’s, that means his net worth could take the hit and that hit could amount to billions.
A friend of mine of who knows Cohen personally said he ran into him at the MLB All-Star game at Citi Field, the home of the New York Mets, in which Cohen owns a small stake. Cohen “looked terrible…and he’d gained 15 pounds” since the time the two met just a month or so earlier. More than that, my source told me, Cohen conceded that his business was basically finished and “at this point my No. 1 goal is not getting personally indicted.”
If that’s the case, he should have stuck with trading teenies.
Read more: http://business.time.com/2013/07/25/steve-cohens-allegedly-corrupt-information-gathering-machine/#ixzz2a7Q44Aqd
By Charles Gasparino
Time
July 25, 2013
When I first met Steve Cohen back in 1999, we were discussing SAC’s vaunted trading strategies, the ones that made his hedge fund one of the most successful in the finance world and burnished Cohen’s rep as one of the world’s best traders.
I said that based on my reporting — I was working for the Wall Street Journal at the time — Cohen started SAC in 1992 with a technique that wasn’t that much different than a day trader: He was trading huge blocks of stock by looking for “teenies,” or small price increments, that he could magnify into massive returns because of the sheer size of his trades.
It was the only time Cohen seemed angered during our discussion, as I recall. “No,” he shot back emphatically, “we employ real trading strategies around here. We do research.” Cohen went on to explain how his firm, SAC, had transformed itself into something much more than a day-trading sweat shop — it was now, he claimed, essentially the biggest and best information gathering machine in the world.
That information machine has now been deemed by the U.S. Department of Justice to be a criminal enterprise. Today’s indictment, filed in Manhattan federal court, of the once mighty hedge fund accuses SAC a multi-year “scheme” to profit from the use of illegal tips—also known as inside information.
It’s interesting to note that, according to prosecutors, the alleged scheme began in 1999—around the time Cohen was boasting of the firm’s new information edge. It’s also interesting to note that while Cohen himself wasn’t charged in the indictment, references to him in the documents are everywhere, which means all those headlines of Cohen himself being “out of the woods” are probably wrong.
In other words, don’t be surprised if you see an indictment of Cohen in the coming weeks as well.
If you don’t believe me, read the indictment. “The SAC Owner had sole trading discretion over his portfolio and made these decisions principally based on trading recommendations from SAC [portfolio managers],” it says. “In particular, at all relevant times the SAC Owner required each [portfolio manager] to share ‘high conviction’ investment ideas–i.e., the investment recommendations in which the SAC [portfolio managers] had the greatest confidence–with the SAC Owner. In fact, providing such ideas to the SAC Owner was an express part of a SAC PM’s duties and was emphasized to SAC [portfolio managers] in the hiring process and once working at SAC.”
As my book about the Fed’s relentless pursuit of Cohen, Circle of Friends, explains, the Feds believe having a “high conviction” investment idea is code for trading on material, non-public information, a.k.a. insider trading. They also believe almost no major trade gets done inside SAC without Cohen’s blessing — and based on my sources inside the government, they believe it’s just a matter of time before they connect the dots to Cohen himself.
I should point out that Cohen maintains his innocence and that the information machine he created runs for the most part on information and research of the legal variety. His people tell me the few bad apples at SAC that have used inside information — as many as 9 former or current company executives have been implicated during the insider trading crackdown — are anomalies.
The Feds, of course, feel they have proof that SAC, under Cohen’s watch, is a dirty shop.
One thing is certain: The mounting pressure from the government probe that’s been investigating the firm since at least 2007 is taking its toll on Cohen, both professionally and personally. Money from outside investors has been fleeing the fund for months as the government’s scrutiny has intensified.
With the indictment, SAC is basically being put out of business, though Cohen could still conceivably manage his own personal fortune of around $9 billion. But the Feds are looking for a chunk of that as well. The indictment says the scheme occurred over an 11-year period and that SAC has to give back its illegal profits.
Since most of the money now in SAC in Cohen’s, that means his net worth could take the hit and that hit could amount to billions.
A friend of mine of who knows Cohen personally said he ran into him at the MLB All-Star game at Citi Field, the home of the New York Mets, in which Cohen owns a small stake. Cohen “looked terrible…and he’d gained 15 pounds” since the time the two met just a month or so earlier. More than that, my source told me, Cohen conceded that his business was basically finished and “at this point my No. 1 goal is not getting personally indicted.”
If that’s the case, he should have stuck with trading teenies.
Read more: http://business.time.com/2013/07/25/steve-cohens-allegedly-corrupt-information-gathering-machine/#ixzz2a7Q44Aqd
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
Senator Barbara Boxer wants probe on troubled San Onofre nuclear power plant
AP Exclusive: Boxer wants probe on troubled plant
By MICHAEL R. BLOOD
Associated Press
May 28, 2013
LOS ANGELES (AP) — U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer wants the Justice Department to investigate if California utility executives deceived federal regulators about an equipment swap at the San Onofre nuclear power plant that eventually led to a radiation leak, The Associated Press has learned.
The California Democrat obtained a 2004 internal letter written by a senior Southern California Edison executive that she said "leads me to believe that Edison intentionally misled the public and regulators" to avoid a potentially long and costly review of four replacement steam generators before they went into service.
The twin-domed plant between Los Angeles and San Diego hasn't produced electricity since January 2012, after a small radiation leak led to the discovery of unusually rapid wear inside hundreds of tubes that carry radioactive water in the nearly new generators.
The letter was written to Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, which manufactured the generators that now sit idle in a plant that once produced power for 1.4 million households.
Boxer, who chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said in a statement Monday that she is providing the correspondence to the Justice Department and other federal and state officials to determine if Edison "engaged in willful wrongdoing."
Nuclear Regulatory Commission spokesman Eliot Brenner declined comment.
By MICHAEL R. BLOOD
Associated Press
May 28, 2013
LOS ANGELES (AP) — U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer wants the Justice Department to investigate if California utility executives deceived federal regulators about an equipment swap at the San Onofre nuclear power plant that eventually led to a radiation leak, The Associated Press has learned.
The California Democrat obtained a 2004 internal letter written by a senior Southern California Edison executive that she said "leads me to believe that Edison intentionally misled the public and regulators" to avoid a potentially long and costly review of four replacement steam generators before they went into service.
The twin-domed plant between Los Angeles and San Diego hasn't produced electricity since January 2012, after a small radiation leak led to the discovery of unusually rapid wear inside hundreds of tubes that carry radioactive water in the nearly new generators.
The letter was written to Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, which manufactured the generators that now sit idle in a plant that once produced power for 1.4 million households.
Boxer, who chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said in a statement Monday that she is providing the correspondence to the Justice Department and other federal and state officials to determine if Edison "engaged in willful wrongdoing."
Nuclear Regulatory Commission spokesman Eliot Brenner declined comment.
Friday, November 30, 2012
10 Corporations That Still Get New Gov't Contracts, Despite Alleged Misconduct
Exxon Mobil is too big to punish, but BP is getting a spanking.
10 Corporations That Still Get New Gov't Contracts, Despite Alleged Misconduct
By Kate Sheppard
Mother Jones
Nov. 30, 2012
The EPA surprised quite a few people on Wednesday when it announced sanctions on BP related to the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster...
This has been a long-time coming for BP. As a ProPublica piece from May 2010 noted, the company was already in trouble before spill:
Over the past 10 years, BP has paid tens of millions of dollars in fines and been implicated in four separate instances of criminal misconduct that could have prompted this far more serious action. Until now, the company's executives and their lawyers have fended off such a penalty by promising that BP would change its ways.
But many companies with federal contracts have been cited for misconduct. Apparently you just have to be really, really bad—like, 26-people-dead, Gulf-ecosystem-destroyed, lying-to-Congress bad—in order to get barred like BP did. The government regularly blocks companies from getting new contracts; there were 5,838 suspensions, proposed debarments, and debarments in 2011, an increase over previous years, but most of them are much smaller companies.
The Project on Government Oversight (POGO) maintains a database of contractors that have been cited for misconduct, including environmental, labor, and financial legal violations. But as POGO points out, "very few large contractors have been suspended or debarred over the years." BP tops the list with 62 instances of misconduct or alleged misconduct since 1995, but here are the ten other big companies right behind BP that are still allowed to obtain government contracts:
Exxon Mobil, 59 instances of alleged misconduct
Lockheed Martin, 58 instances
Boeing Company, 46 instances
General Electric, 44 instances
Honeywell International, 41 instances
ChevronTexaco Corporation, 37 instances
Northrop Grumman, 35 instances
Fluor Corporation, 34 instances
Royal Dutch Shell PLC, 34 instances
GlaxoSmithKline, 33 instances
10 Corporations That Still Get New Gov't Contracts, Despite Alleged Misconduct
By Kate Sheppard
Mother Jones
Nov. 30, 2012
The EPA surprised quite a few people on Wednesday when it announced sanctions on BP related to the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster...
This has been a long-time coming for BP. As a ProPublica piece from May 2010 noted, the company was already in trouble before spill:
Over the past 10 years, BP has paid tens of millions of dollars in fines and been implicated in four separate instances of criminal misconduct that could have prompted this far more serious action. Until now, the company's executives and their lawyers have fended off such a penalty by promising that BP would change its ways.
But many companies with federal contracts have been cited for misconduct. Apparently you just have to be really, really bad—like, 26-people-dead, Gulf-ecosystem-destroyed, lying-to-Congress bad—in order to get barred like BP did. The government regularly blocks companies from getting new contracts; there were 5,838 suspensions, proposed debarments, and debarments in 2011, an increase over previous years, but most of them are much smaller companies.
The Project on Government Oversight (POGO) maintains a database of contractors that have been cited for misconduct, including environmental, labor, and financial legal violations. But as POGO points out, "very few large contractors have been suspended or debarred over the years." BP tops the list with 62 instances of misconduct or alleged misconduct since 1995, but here are the ten other big companies right behind BP that are still allowed to obtain government contracts:
Exxon Mobil, 59 instances of alleged misconduct
Lockheed Martin, 58 instances
Boeing Company, 46 instances
General Electric, 44 instances
Honeywell International, 41 instances
ChevronTexaco Corporation, 37 instances
Northrop Grumman, 35 instances
Fluor Corporation, 34 instances
Royal Dutch Shell PLC, 34 instances
GlaxoSmithKline, 33 instances
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
Criminal Tax Penalties for ALEC? CMD's Investigation Provides Facts for Powerful New Complaint by Former IRS Official
Criminal Tax Penalties for ALEC? CMD's Investigation Provides Facts for Powerful New Complaint by Former IRS Official
by Brendan Fischer
PR Watch
July 9, 2012
This month, a former leader of the Internal Revenue Service filed a complaint that the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) has violated the terms of its nonprofit status by operating primarily for the private benefit of its corporate members, based on documents and research from the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD), which manages PRWatch, ALECexposed, and SourceWatch. The complaint, which also alleges that ALEC misrepresented itself in tax filings, raises additional allegations beyond those in earlier IRS complaints filed by Common Cause.
"Astounding" Violations of IRS Law
ALEC "elevates commercial gain for a few over the well-being of society's less fortunate" through "an agenda largely crafted by the organization's corporate members," the complaint states (a pdf of the complaint is below). Marcus Owens, the former chief of the Service's nonprofit division, filed the complaint on behalf of Clergy VOICE, a group of Christian ministers in Ohio. "ALEC has deliberately and repeatedly failed to comply with some of the most fundamental federal tax requirements applicable to public charities," the complaint says. Owens is a nationally recognized expert and leader on nonprofit tax law and a member of the noted law firm Caplin & Drysdale.
ALEC is afforded a variety of benefits by virtue of its "charity" status -- not least of which is giving corporations a tax deduction for paying ALEC membership dues -- but in exchange for those benefits, ALEC is supposed to primarily serve public or charitable interests (rather than private interests) and engage in minimal lobbying.
"ALEC is doing an extraordinary amount of lobbying, but reporting to the IRS they are doing NO lobbying," Owens told CMD. "Even when North Dakota forced two of ALEC's attorneys to register as lobbyists, they still reported [on their IRS filings] they did no lobbying. That is astounding."
"I have never seen such a systematic and extensive operation . . . to sidestep disclosure and ethics rules in a way that really allows them to have an extraordinary impact," Owens said.
Corporate Control over Model Bills Give Private Benefit
In the complaint, Owens and Clergy VOICE allege that ALEC operates primarily for the benefit of its corporate members by offering "not only unprecedented access to state lawmakers -- the very individuals who introduce and support the state laws that positively impact the corporations' bottom lines -- but also the opportunity to draft those laws." The complaint references "model" bills like the asbestos liability act, which specifically shields ALEC member Crown Holdings from asbestos liability claims, and the Drug Liability Act, which benefits ALEC member pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer or Merck by protecting them from lawsuit when their products injure or kill (as CMD discussed when that model bill was introduced in Wisconsin).
ALEC is structured to give private benefit to its corporate members, the complaint states, with its operating procedures giving ALEC's "corporate donors authority to approve or veto every legislative and policy proposal developed by ALEC's Task Forces," and its bylaws giving "corporate members disproportionate authority to appoint and remove legislators from the Task Forces."
According to the complaint, "[t]his effectively ensures that the only model laws distributed to ALEC's Legislative Members and disseminated nationwide are those that have been co-drafted and subsequently blessed by ALEC's corporate donors."
"Further, the legislative proposals that clear this process appear to be motivated substantially, if not primarily, by the pecuniary interests of ALEC's corporate members."
The complaint also notes that ALEC's legislative board and most legislative members are Republicans -- and that most of ALEC's operations provide a private benefit to the Republican Party.
Scholarships Are "the Definition of a Bribe"
The site of the ALEC 2011 States & Nation Policy Summit in Scottsdale. Clergy VOICE also alleges that ALEC operates to benefit its legislative members through the "scholarship program" that allows corporations to pay for the flights, hotel rooms, meals, and entertainment of ALEC politicians. The meetings are ”held in luxury hotels, frequently in vacation-worthy destinations like San Diego, New Orleans and Scottsdale,” and scholarships fund “perks such as meals, recreational activities, and subsidized childcare for legislators and their families.” (CMD has previously described the scholarship scheme here.)
Additionally, “[m]eeting agendas include events like golf tournaments, open bar parties and baseball games — all subsidized directly or indirectly by ALEC’s corporate members,” the complaint says.
Despite this, ALEC has told the IRS that it provides no scholarships and funds no travel or entertainment expenses for elected officials...
by Brendan Fischer
PR Watch
July 9, 2012
This month, a former leader of the Internal Revenue Service filed a complaint that the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) has violated the terms of its nonprofit status by operating primarily for the private benefit of its corporate members, based on documents and research from the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD), which manages PRWatch, ALECexposed, and SourceWatch. The complaint, which also alleges that ALEC misrepresented itself in tax filings, raises additional allegations beyond those in earlier IRS complaints filed by Common Cause.
"Astounding" Violations of IRS Law
ALEC "elevates commercial gain for a few over the well-being of society's less fortunate" through "an agenda largely crafted by the organization's corporate members," the complaint states (a pdf of the complaint is below). Marcus Owens, the former chief of the Service's nonprofit division, filed the complaint on behalf of Clergy VOICE, a group of Christian ministers in Ohio. "ALEC has deliberately and repeatedly failed to comply with some of the most fundamental federal tax requirements applicable to public charities," the complaint says. Owens is a nationally recognized expert and leader on nonprofit tax law and a member of the noted law firm Caplin & Drysdale.
ALEC is afforded a variety of benefits by virtue of its "charity" status -- not least of which is giving corporations a tax deduction for paying ALEC membership dues -- but in exchange for those benefits, ALEC is supposed to primarily serve public or charitable interests (rather than private interests) and engage in minimal lobbying.
"ALEC is doing an extraordinary amount of lobbying, but reporting to the IRS they are doing NO lobbying," Owens told CMD. "Even when North Dakota forced two of ALEC's attorneys to register as lobbyists, they still reported [on their IRS filings] they did no lobbying. That is astounding."
"I have never seen such a systematic and extensive operation . . . to sidestep disclosure and ethics rules in a way that really allows them to have an extraordinary impact," Owens said.
Corporate Control over Model Bills Give Private Benefit
In the complaint, Owens and Clergy VOICE allege that ALEC operates primarily for the benefit of its corporate members by offering "not only unprecedented access to state lawmakers -- the very individuals who introduce and support the state laws that positively impact the corporations' bottom lines -- but also the opportunity to draft those laws." The complaint references "model" bills like the asbestos liability act, which specifically shields ALEC member Crown Holdings from asbestos liability claims, and the Drug Liability Act, which benefits ALEC member pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer or Merck by protecting them from lawsuit when their products injure or kill (as CMD discussed when that model bill was introduced in Wisconsin).
ALEC is structured to give private benefit to its corporate members, the complaint states, with its operating procedures giving ALEC's "corporate donors authority to approve or veto every legislative and policy proposal developed by ALEC's Task Forces," and its bylaws giving "corporate members disproportionate authority to appoint and remove legislators from the Task Forces."
According to the complaint, "[t]his effectively ensures that the only model laws distributed to ALEC's Legislative Members and disseminated nationwide are those that have been co-drafted and subsequently blessed by ALEC's corporate donors."
"Further, the legislative proposals that clear this process appear to be motivated substantially, if not primarily, by the pecuniary interests of ALEC's corporate members."
The complaint also notes that ALEC's legislative board and most legislative members are Republicans -- and that most of ALEC's operations provide a private benefit to the Republican Party.
Scholarships Are "the Definition of a Bribe"
The site of the ALEC 2011 States & Nation Policy Summit in Scottsdale. Clergy VOICE also alleges that ALEC operates to benefit its legislative members through the "scholarship program" that allows corporations to pay for the flights, hotel rooms, meals, and entertainment of ALEC politicians. The meetings are ”held in luxury hotels, frequently in vacation-worthy destinations like San Diego, New Orleans and Scottsdale,” and scholarships fund “perks such as meals, recreational activities, and subsidized childcare for legislators and their families.” (CMD has previously described the scholarship scheme here.)
Additionally, “[m]eeting agendas include events like golf tournaments, open bar parties and baseball games — all subsidized directly or indirectly by ALEC’s corporate members,” the complaint says.
Despite this, ALEC has told the IRS that it provides no scholarships and funds no travel or entertainment expenses for elected officials...
Wednesday, July 4, 2012
Mystery Bermuda-based company and other undisclosed Romney assets hint at larger wealth
Mystery Bermuda-based company and other undisclosed Romney assets hint at larger wealth
For nearly 15 years, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s financial portfolio has included an offshore company that remained invisible to voters
By Associated Press
July 3, 2012
WASHINGTON — For nearly 15 years, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s financial portfolio has included an offshore company that remained invisible to voters as his political star rose.
Based in Bermuda, Sankaty High Yield Asset Investors Ltd. was not listed on any of Romney’s state or federal financial reports. The company is among several Romney holdings that have not been fully disclosed, including one that recently posted a $1.9 million earning — suggesting he could be wealthier than the nearly $250 million estimated by his campaign.
The omissions were permitted by state and federal authorities overseeing Romney’s ethics filings, and he has never been cited for failing to disclose information about his money. But Romney’s limited disclosures deprive the public of an accurate depiction of his wealth and a clear understanding of how his assets are handled and taxed, according to experts in private equity, tax and campaign finance law.
Sankaty was transferred to a trust owned by Romney’s wife, Ann, one day before he was sworn in as Massachusetts governor in 2003, according to Bermuda records obtained by The Associated Press. The Romneys’ ownership of the offshore firm did not appear on any state or federal financial reports during Romney’s two presidential campaigns. Only the Romneys’ 2010 tax records, released under political pressure earlier this year, confirmed their continuing control of the company.
The mystery surrounding Sankaty reinforces Romney’s history of keeping a tight rein on his public dealings, already documented by his use of private email and computer purges as Massachusetts governor and his refusal to disclose his top fundraisers. The Bermuda company had almost no assets, according to Romney’s 2010 tax returns. But such partnership stakes could still provide significant income for years to come, said tax experts, who added that the lack of disclosure makes it impossible to know for certain.
“We don’t know the big picture,” said Victor Fleischer, a University of Colorado law professor and private equity expert who urged corporate tax code reforms during congressional testimony last year. “Most of these disclosure rules are designed for people who have passive ownership of stocks and bonds. But in this case, he continues to own management interests that fluctuate greatly in value long after his time with the company and even the end of his separation agreement. And the public has no clear idea where the money is coming from or when it will end.”
Named for a historic Massachusetts coastal lighthouse, Sankaty was part of a cluster of similarly named hedge funds run by Bain Capital, the private equity firm Romney founded and led until 1999. The offshore company was used in Bain’s $1 billion takeover of Domino’s Pizza and other multimillion-dollar investment deals more than a decade ago.
Romney’s campaign declined to answer detailed questions from AP about Sankaty. Romney aides have said in the past that some disclosures were not required because those assets were valued by his financial advisers at less than $1,000 — below the minimum threshold under federal rules set by the U.S. Office of Government Ethics. A financial snapshot of Sankaty in Romney’s 2010 tax returns showed the holding with almost no value at the time— with $10,000 in both assets and liabilities...
The implications of Romney’s Bain profit-sharing became clear last month when his trust reported that one rarely disclosed asset had posted a $1.9 million payout. The income was described as a “true-up” payment, catch-up income that made up for unpaid earnings owed to Romney as part of his Bain separation agreement.
Such sizable earnings are possible “depending on the terms of the agreement,” said tax law expert Michael Kosnitzky, an attorney at the New York firm of Boies, Schiller & Flexner. The Romney campaign acknowledged recently that it could not rule out more large future payments.
The use of offshore companies such as Sankaty is allowed under U.S. tax laws. They are typically set up as shell corporations by private equity and hedge funds to route investments from large foreign and institutional investors, such as large pension plans, into corporate takeovers. The money is used to provide equity and buy up debt. In turn, the investors gain U.S. tax advantages by passing their funds through the offshore “blocker” corporations, avoiding a high 35 percent tax on earnings that the Internal Revenue Service describes as “unrelated business income.”
Set up in Bermuda in 1997, Sankaty served as Romney’s partnership stake in Bain’s Sankaty group, which invests in bonds, bank loans and corporate debt instruments. That first wave of Sankaty funds managed more than $100 million in investments in the late 1990s and early 2000s, according to a corporate analyst familiar with the funds. The analyst insisted on anonymity because the analyst was not authorized to discuss the funds publicly...
For nearly 15 years, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s financial portfolio has included an offshore company that remained invisible to voters
By Associated Press
July 3, 2012
WASHINGTON — For nearly 15 years, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s financial portfolio has included an offshore company that remained invisible to voters as his political star rose.
Based in Bermuda, Sankaty High Yield Asset Investors Ltd. was not listed on any of Romney’s state or federal financial reports. The company is among several Romney holdings that have not been fully disclosed, including one that recently posted a $1.9 million earning — suggesting he could be wealthier than the nearly $250 million estimated by his campaign.
The omissions were permitted by state and federal authorities overseeing Romney’s ethics filings, and he has never been cited for failing to disclose information about his money. But Romney’s limited disclosures deprive the public of an accurate depiction of his wealth and a clear understanding of how his assets are handled and taxed, according to experts in private equity, tax and campaign finance law.
Sankaty was transferred to a trust owned by Romney’s wife, Ann, one day before he was sworn in as Massachusetts governor in 2003, according to Bermuda records obtained by The Associated Press. The Romneys’ ownership of the offshore firm did not appear on any state or federal financial reports during Romney’s two presidential campaigns. Only the Romneys’ 2010 tax records, released under political pressure earlier this year, confirmed their continuing control of the company.
The mystery surrounding Sankaty reinforces Romney’s history of keeping a tight rein on his public dealings, already documented by his use of private email and computer purges as Massachusetts governor and his refusal to disclose his top fundraisers. The Bermuda company had almost no assets, according to Romney’s 2010 tax returns. But such partnership stakes could still provide significant income for years to come, said tax experts, who added that the lack of disclosure makes it impossible to know for certain.
“We don’t know the big picture,” said Victor Fleischer, a University of Colorado law professor and private equity expert who urged corporate tax code reforms during congressional testimony last year. “Most of these disclosure rules are designed for people who have passive ownership of stocks and bonds. But in this case, he continues to own management interests that fluctuate greatly in value long after his time with the company and even the end of his separation agreement. And the public has no clear idea where the money is coming from or when it will end.”
Named for a historic Massachusetts coastal lighthouse, Sankaty was part of a cluster of similarly named hedge funds run by Bain Capital, the private equity firm Romney founded and led until 1999. The offshore company was used in Bain’s $1 billion takeover of Domino’s Pizza and other multimillion-dollar investment deals more than a decade ago.
Romney’s campaign declined to answer detailed questions from AP about Sankaty. Romney aides have said in the past that some disclosures were not required because those assets were valued by his financial advisers at less than $1,000 — below the minimum threshold under federal rules set by the U.S. Office of Government Ethics. A financial snapshot of Sankaty in Romney’s 2010 tax returns showed the holding with almost no value at the time— with $10,000 in both assets and liabilities...
The implications of Romney’s Bain profit-sharing became clear last month when his trust reported that one rarely disclosed asset had posted a $1.9 million payout. The income was described as a “true-up” payment, catch-up income that made up for unpaid earnings owed to Romney as part of his Bain separation agreement.
Such sizable earnings are possible “depending on the terms of the agreement,” said tax law expert Michael Kosnitzky, an attorney at the New York firm of Boies, Schiller & Flexner. The Romney campaign acknowledged recently that it could not rule out more large future payments.
The use of offshore companies such as Sankaty is allowed under U.S. tax laws. They are typically set up as shell corporations by private equity and hedge funds to route investments from large foreign and institutional investors, such as large pension plans, into corporate takeovers. The money is used to provide equity and buy up debt. In turn, the investors gain U.S. tax advantages by passing their funds through the offshore “blocker” corporations, avoiding a high 35 percent tax on earnings that the Internal Revenue Service describes as “unrelated business income.”
Set up in Bermuda in 1997, Sankaty served as Romney’s partnership stake in Bain’s Sankaty group, which invests in bonds, bank loans and corporate debt instruments. That first wave of Sankaty funds managed more than $100 million in investments in the late 1990s and early 2000s, according to a corporate analyst familiar with the funds. The analyst insisted on anonymity because the analyst was not authorized to discuss the funds publicly...
Saturday, June 16, 2012
Go tell it on the mountain: The Edge doesn't need five homes here
The U2 guitarist is lining up political muscle and environmentalist star power to support constructing his eco-friendly castles on a pristine ridge near Malibu. What's greener? Not building at all.
Go tell it on the mountain: The Edge doesn't need five homes here
By Steve Lopez
LA Times
December 23, 2009
Just so you know, it's not easy for me to refer to U2 guitarist David Evans as "The Edge." Sure, there was a time when I referred to myself as S. Lo. But I quickly realized that once you've gone gray, it's hard to get away with anything other than what's on the birth certificate.
And I can't keep a straight face when I tell you that the five eco-friendly castles Mr. Edge wants to carve into the top of a pristine ridge near Malibu already have names. There's "Clouds Rest" and "Panorama," "Shell House" and "Blue Clouds." And my personal favorite, "Leaves in the Wind."
The latter is also the name of a website (www.leavesinthewind.com) promoting the controversial project, which would sit high above the Malibu pier, with a sweeping, miles-long view of spectacular coastline. You'd think a guy from one of the greatest bands in history could come up with a name that was a bit, shall we say, edgier, for a rock 'n' roll compound.
The Malibu area has been buzzing since a video was added to The Edge's website in the last several weeks, perhaps in anticipation of an upcoming California Coastal Commission hearing on the proposal. Against a gag-inducing track of New Age music, with birds tweeting in the background, fawning proponents of The Edge's plans praise the project. His supporters include Bonny Reiss, Gov. Schwarzenegger's former senior advisor, and, more surprisingly, Mark Massara, head of the Sierra Club's Great Coastal Places Campaign.
"It's going to take those visionary leaders being associated with projects like these, that are going to show how to make the California coastline a model of sustainability," Massara says on the video, in which he all but encourages the Coastal Commission to embrace the proposal.
Clearly The Edge is lining up all the political muscle and environmentalist star power he possibly can. He's even got a well-connected PR and lobbying firm -- California Strategies -- backing him up.
And that combination of clout and slick marketing is part of what riles Malibu City Councilman Jefferson Wagner. Although the compound would be outside Malibu city limits, it would require major expansion of a road within the city. Wagner is not inclined to vote in favor, and he's not a fan of the website testimonial, which makes no mention of all the dust in the wind there'd be once the bulldozers take the mountain...
Lobbyists who worked on the Edge's project are urging legislators to approve a measure that could clear the way for his development, which the Coastal Commission rejected.
U2 guitarist may get a second chance at Malibu mansions
By Michael J. Mishak
Los Angeles Times
June 16, 2012
SACRAMENTO — The California Coastal Commission rejected a controversial proposal last year by U2 guitarist the Edge to build five mansions on a scenic bluff above Malibu, saying that it would scar a rugged ridgeline and harm sensitive habitat.
Now, some of the same powerful lobbyists and lawyers behind the musician's quashed development are working the halls of the Capitol to push a bill that could give the rock star another chance at his dream compound.
Environmentalists and state agencies say that if the legislation becomes law, it will undermine the commission's position on his project and also extend to the character and development of the entire California coast and to state public lands.
At issue is how government agencies determine property ownership and how they use the findings in deciding whether to approve development.
Currently, the Coastal Commission has discretion to approve projects in environmentally sensitive areas — and the size and nature of those developments depend on ownership. The agency is more inclined, for example, to turn down a developer seeking approval for a multi-home project than a property owner trying to build a single-family house.
Developers at times try to skirt the issue by claiming each homesite has a different owner. They shield the identities through formation of limited liability corporations.
In the case of the Edge, whose real name is David Evans, the agency denied his plans because it said he was attempting to bypass environmental rules and maximize development by submitting five separate applications, each under a different corporate name.
Under the bill, state agencies would have to accept as fact that the person holding the deed is the property owner. If the state sought to challenge true ownership, it would be held to the same evidentiary standards that apply in the court system. The Coastal Commission and others argue that the standard would hamstring public agencies because they have none of the court system's tools of discovery: subpoenas, depositions and sworn testimony.
Sarah Christie, legislative director for the Coastal Commission, said the result would be a chilling effect on public agencies' abilities to carry out their missions, giving any developers who game the system more clout and potentially leading to "more fragmented, inappropriate development" along the coast.
Environmentalists cast the bill as a power grab by developers and special interests, including Evans.
"The forces who want to maximize their profit above all else are seeking to rewrite the rules in such a way that ensures the state government has limited ability to oversee and to take care of our public trust resources," said Adam Keats, an attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity.
The bill's author, Assemblyman Ben Hueso (D-Logan Heights), said he introduced the bill to rein in what he sees as an overzealous bureaucracy that uses arbitrary standards to block development, a notion shared by the California Chamber of Commerce and other business groups. Its purpose is not to advance the interests of the U2 guitarist, Hueso said.
Hueso, a former coastal commissioner, said the measure would end the commission's "very abusive strategy to prevent someone from developing even an environmentally friendly project." He said public agencies would still have the resources to investigate ownership.
"If we have every agency in California cherry picking projects they don't like, it's going to create an enormous problem in our ability to do business in California," he said.
The legislator said he got the idea for the bill from Paul Bauer, one of the lobbyists Evans hired last year to help him before the Coastal Commission.
Former Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez, who also worked as a consultant on Evans' development, has lobbied the agency to support the legislation. In an email to the chairwoman of the commission last month, Nuñez said he was sharing his own view, not that of a client. "This bill would prohibit local agencies from discriminating against some by inserting their own interpretation of property ownership," he wrote...
Go tell it on the mountain: The Edge doesn't need five homes here
By Steve Lopez
LA Times
December 23, 2009
Just so you know, it's not easy for me to refer to U2 guitarist David Evans as "The Edge." Sure, there was a time when I referred to myself as S. Lo. But I quickly realized that once you've gone gray, it's hard to get away with anything other than what's on the birth certificate.
And I can't keep a straight face when I tell you that the five eco-friendly castles Mr. Edge wants to carve into the top of a pristine ridge near Malibu already have names. There's "Clouds Rest" and "Panorama," "Shell House" and "Blue Clouds." And my personal favorite, "Leaves in the Wind."
The latter is also the name of a website (www.leavesinthewind.com) promoting the controversial project, which would sit high above the Malibu pier, with a sweeping, miles-long view of spectacular coastline. You'd think a guy from one of the greatest bands in history could come up with a name that was a bit, shall we say, edgier, for a rock 'n' roll compound.
The Malibu area has been buzzing since a video was added to The Edge's website in the last several weeks, perhaps in anticipation of an upcoming California Coastal Commission hearing on the proposal. Against a gag-inducing track of New Age music, with birds tweeting in the background, fawning proponents of The Edge's plans praise the project. His supporters include Bonny Reiss, Gov. Schwarzenegger's former senior advisor, and, more surprisingly, Mark Massara, head of the Sierra Club's Great Coastal Places Campaign.
"It's going to take those visionary leaders being associated with projects like these, that are going to show how to make the California coastline a model of sustainability," Massara says on the video, in which he all but encourages the Coastal Commission to embrace the proposal.
Clearly The Edge is lining up all the political muscle and environmentalist star power he possibly can. He's even got a well-connected PR and lobbying firm -- California Strategies -- backing him up.
And that combination of clout and slick marketing is part of what riles Malibu City Councilman Jefferson Wagner. Although the compound would be outside Malibu city limits, it would require major expansion of a road within the city. Wagner is not inclined to vote in favor, and he's not a fan of the website testimonial, which makes no mention of all the dust in the wind there'd be once the bulldozers take the mountain...
Lobbyists who worked on the Edge's project are urging legislators to approve a measure that could clear the way for his development, which the Coastal Commission rejected.
U2 guitarist may get a second chance at Malibu mansions
By Michael J. Mishak
Los Angeles Times
June 16, 2012
SACRAMENTO — The California Coastal Commission rejected a controversial proposal last year by U2 guitarist the Edge to build five mansions on a scenic bluff above Malibu, saying that it would scar a rugged ridgeline and harm sensitive habitat.
Now, some of the same powerful lobbyists and lawyers behind the musician's quashed development are working the halls of the Capitol to push a bill that could give the rock star another chance at his dream compound.
Environmentalists and state agencies say that if the legislation becomes law, it will undermine the commission's position on his project and also extend to the character and development of the entire California coast and to state public lands.
At issue is how government agencies determine property ownership and how they use the findings in deciding whether to approve development.
Currently, the Coastal Commission has discretion to approve projects in environmentally sensitive areas — and the size and nature of those developments depend on ownership. The agency is more inclined, for example, to turn down a developer seeking approval for a multi-home project than a property owner trying to build a single-family house.
Developers at times try to skirt the issue by claiming each homesite has a different owner. They shield the identities through formation of limited liability corporations.
In the case of the Edge, whose real name is David Evans, the agency denied his plans because it said he was attempting to bypass environmental rules and maximize development by submitting five separate applications, each under a different corporate name.
Under the bill, state agencies would have to accept as fact that the person holding the deed is the property owner. If the state sought to challenge true ownership, it would be held to the same evidentiary standards that apply in the court system. The Coastal Commission and others argue that the standard would hamstring public agencies because they have none of the court system's tools of discovery: subpoenas, depositions and sworn testimony.
Sarah Christie, legislative director for the Coastal Commission, said the result would be a chilling effect on public agencies' abilities to carry out their missions, giving any developers who game the system more clout and potentially leading to "more fragmented, inappropriate development" along the coast.
Environmentalists cast the bill as a power grab by developers and special interests, including Evans.
"The forces who want to maximize their profit above all else are seeking to rewrite the rules in such a way that ensures the state government has limited ability to oversee and to take care of our public trust resources," said Adam Keats, an attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity.
The bill's author, Assemblyman Ben Hueso (D-Logan Heights), said he introduced the bill to rein in what he sees as an overzealous bureaucracy that uses arbitrary standards to block development, a notion shared by the California Chamber of Commerce and other business groups. Its purpose is not to advance the interests of the U2 guitarist, Hueso said.
Hueso, a former coastal commissioner, said the measure would end the commission's "very abusive strategy to prevent someone from developing even an environmentally friendly project." He said public agencies would still have the resources to investigate ownership.
"If we have every agency in California cherry picking projects they don't like, it's going to create an enormous problem in our ability to do business in California," he said.
The legislator said he got the idea for the bill from Paul Bauer, one of the lobbyists Evans hired last year to help him before the Coastal Commission.
Former Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez, who also worked as a consultant on Evans' development, has lobbied the agency to support the legislation. In an email to the chairwoman of the commission last month, Nuñez said he was sharing his own view, not that of a client. "This bill would prohibit local agencies from discriminating against some by inserting their own interpretation of property ownership," he wrote...
Sunday, March 11, 2012
San Diego lawmakers received overseas trips
Assemblyman Brian Jones, R-Santee, went to the Fairmont Kea Lani resort in Maui for a week. The $2,415 junket was courtesy of the California Independent Voter Project, a San Diego nonprofit with funding from oil companies, utilities, pharmaceutical companies and a cigarette maker, according to the newspaper.
...Assemblyman Marty Block, D-San Diego, took a $10,735 Italy trip paid for by the California Foundation on the Environment and Economy, a San Francisco-based nonprofit made up of oil companies, utilities and environmental groups. The trip included plant tours and meetings on energy issues, from solar power to smart meters.
Block also went on a $3,883 trip to Israel sponsored by Faith2Green, a Los Angeles-based nonprofit made up of faith-based organizations interested in environmental issues.
...Not all the trips had big budgets. Sen. Juan Vargas, D-San Diego, reported accepting a $219 gift of lodging and meals from the California Independent Petroleum Association as part of a symposium.
Report: SD lawmakers received overseas trips
Associated Press
March 11, 2012
Several San Diego County legislators received all-expenses-paid trips last year to Hawaii, Mexico, Israel and Italy _ renewing calls from critics that state gift-giving rules should be tightened.
Disclosure reports show the treks, bundled with meetings and plant tours, were sponsored by nonprofits that receive contributions from influence peddlers with a stake in legislation and the budget, according to an investigation by UT San Diego (http://bit.ly/ApmvwP) published Sunday.
Representatives from the corporations, utilities, labor unions and environmental groups often joined the excursions, giving them access to lawmakers, the newspaper said.
State law limits the value of gifts. But travel, if funded by a nonprofit, can be accepted as long as lawmakers participate in a meaningful way _ by giving a speech or sitting on a panel, for example.
California Common Cause, a government accountability group, says it's a loophole that should be closed. The group has lobbied for tightening gift-giving rules and providing full disclosure of who is contributing how much to the nonprofit group listed as the trip's sponsor.
"This is another way to get money into politics," Phillip Ung, policy director of California Common Cause, told UT San Diego.
The newspaper cited 10 lawmakers who reported accepting trips in 2011. Among them was Assemblywoman Toni Atkins, D-San Diego, who took a $5,866 trek to Israel to discuss homeland security and Iran. It was sponsored by the Jewish Federation of Los Angeles...
...Assemblyman Marty Block, D-San Diego, took a $10,735 Italy trip paid for by the California Foundation on the Environment and Economy, a San Francisco-based nonprofit made up of oil companies, utilities and environmental groups. The trip included plant tours and meetings on energy issues, from solar power to smart meters.
Block also went on a $3,883 trip to Israel sponsored by Faith2Green, a Los Angeles-based nonprofit made up of faith-based organizations interested in environmental issues.
...Not all the trips had big budgets. Sen. Juan Vargas, D-San Diego, reported accepting a $219 gift of lodging and meals from the California Independent Petroleum Association as part of a symposium.
Report: SD lawmakers received overseas trips
Associated Press
March 11, 2012
Several San Diego County legislators received all-expenses-paid trips last year to Hawaii, Mexico, Israel and Italy _ renewing calls from critics that state gift-giving rules should be tightened.
Disclosure reports show the treks, bundled with meetings and plant tours, were sponsored by nonprofits that receive contributions from influence peddlers with a stake in legislation and the budget, according to an investigation by UT San Diego (http://bit.ly/ApmvwP) published Sunday.
Representatives from the corporations, utilities, labor unions and environmental groups often joined the excursions, giving them access to lawmakers, the newspaper said.
State law limits the value of gifts. But travel, if funded by a nonprofit, can be accepted as long as lawmakers participate in a meaningful way _ by giving a speech or sitting on a panel, for example.
California Common Cause, a government accountability group, says it's a loophole that should be closed. The group has lobbied for tightening gift-giving rules and providing full disclosure of who is contributing how much to the nonprofit group listed as the trip's sponsor.
"This is another way to get money into politics," Phillip Ung, policy director of California Common Cause, told UT San Diego.
The newspaper cited 10 lawmakers who reported accepting trips in 2011. Among them was Assemblywoman Toni Atkins, D-San Diego, who took a $5,866 trek to Israel to discuss homeland security and Iran. It was sponsored by the Jewish Federation of Los Angeles...
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
State Assembly Bill Seeks to Disclose Political Ad Donors
State Assembly Bill Seeks to Disclose Political Ad Donors
AB 1148, the California Disclose Act, goes before the state Assembly Tuesday.
Hollywood Patch
Jan. 31, 2012
Public interest groups are urging citizens to back a bill up for a vote Tuesday in the California Assembly that would require the disclosure of large donors to political ads seen by voters across the state.
Under AB 1148, also known as the California Disclose Act, the three largest donors to political advertising on TV and radio as well as those in mailers and Web sites would need to be named.
"This would be a huge win for democracy in California, allowing citizens to give proper weight to the different messages they hear and make informed decisions at the ballot box," said MapLight, a nonprofit that tracks the influence of money in politics, in an email message to supporters.
Other organizations that have registered their support of the bill include the California National Organization for Women, the California League of Women Voters, the Planning and Conservation League and the California Clean Money Campaign (which is sponsoring the bill), among others.
The California Chamber of Commerce has announced its opposition, saying the bill would place "significant and onerous changes" on the process and hurt protected speech. The Chamber's opposition dims the bill's prospects, the San Jose Mercury-News stated. The California Broadcasters Association also opposes the bill.
AB 1148, the California Disclose Act, goes before the state Assembly Tuesday.
Hollywood Patch
Jan. 31, 2012
Public interest groups are urging citizens to back a bill up for a vote Tuesday in the California Assembly that would require the disclosure of large donors to political ads seen by voters across the state.
Under AB 1148, also known as the California Disclose Act, the three largest donors to political advertising on TV and radio as well as those in mailers and Web sites would need to be named.
"This would be a huge win for democracy in California, allowing citizens to give proper weight to the different messages they hear and make informed decisions at the ballot box," said MapLight, a nonprofit that tracks the influence of money in politics, in an email message to supporters.
Other organizations that have registered their support of the bill include the California National Organization for Women, the California League of Women Voters, the Planning and Conservation League and the California Clean Money Campaign (which is sponsoring the bill), among others.
The California Chamber of Commerce has announced its opposition, saying the bill would place "significant and onerous changes" on the process and hurt protected speech. The Chamber's opposition dims the bill's prospects, the San Jose Mercury-News stated. The California Broadcasters Association also opposes the bill.
Friday, December 23, 2011
Heritage Foundation supports freedom of speech: comes out against SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act)
Pro-copyright group takes SOPA to task
by Declan McCullagh
December 21, 2011
The Heritage Foundation, probably the nation's most influential conservative advocacy group, has long been a reliable ally of large copyright holders. But not when it comes to the controversial Stop Online Piracy Act.
The venerable think tank, which enjoys close ties with the Republican Party and inspired President Reagan's missile defense program and the GOP's welfare reform effort, warned today that SOPA raises important security and free speech concerns.
"The concern with SOPA is that it enforces private property rights at the expense of other values, such as innovation on the Internet, security of the Internet, and freedom of communication," James Gattuso, Heritage's senior research fellow in regulatory policy, told CNET this evening. While SOPA addresses a "very real problem," he says, it's not necessarily the right solution.
Unlike some Washington advocacy groups that are predictably anti-copyright, Heritage has historically taken the opposite position. It called the Motion Picture Association of America's decision to sue peer-to-peer pirates a "wise choice," and suggested that disrupting P2P networks to curb piracy, an idea that some politicians actually proposed, is a step "in the right direction."
Heritage's criticism is important because SOPA author Lamar Smith of Texas, who has become Hollywood's favorite Republican, is almost certain to win committee approval in early 2012. Then the bill's fate will rest in the hands of the Republican House leadership--which could chose to delay a floor vote indefinitely if the GOP appears divided...
by Declan McCullagh
December 21, 2011
The Heritage Foundation, probably the nation's most influential conservative advocacy group, has long been a reliable ally of large copyright holders. But not when it comes to the controversial Stop Online Piracy Act.
The venerable think tank, which enjoys close ties with the Republican Party and inspired President Reagan's missile defense program and the GOP's welfare reform effort, warned today that SOPA raises important security and free speech concerns.
"The concern with SOPA is that it enforces private property rights at the expense of other values, such as innovation on the Internet, security of the Internet, and freedom of communication," James Gattuso, Heritage's senior research fellow in regulatory policy, told CNET this evening. While SOPA addresses a "very real problem," he says, it's not necessarily the right solution.
Unlike some Washington advocacy groups that are predictably anti-copyright, Heritage has historically taken the opposite position. It called the Motion Picture Association of America's decision to sue peer-to-peer pirates a "wise choice," and suggested that disrupting P2P networks to curb piracy, an idea that some politicians actually proposed, is a step "in the right direction."
Heritage's criticism is important because SOPA author Lamar Smith of Texas, who has become Hollywood's favorite Republican, is almost certain to win committee approval in early 2012. Then the bill's fate will rest in the hands of the Republican House leadership--which could chose to delay a floor vote indefinitely if the GOP appears divided...
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Republicans block Obama's nominee to head consumer watchdog agenc
Senate Republicans block Obama's nominee to head consumer watchdog agency
Washington Post
Dec. 8, 2011
In a long-awaited vote Thursday morning, Senate Republicans blocked the confirmation of President Obama’s nominee to lead his signature consumer watchdog agency, a move that prevents it from exercising many of its broad new powers.
Republicans relied on a procedural vote to keep the Senate from even considering former Ohio attorney general Richard Cordray for the top job at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Though GOP lawmakers have praised Cordray’s qualifications for the job -- he currently serves as the CFPB’s director of enforcement -- they have pledged to prevent any candidate from being confirmed unless significant structural change are made to the bureau.
Read more at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2chambers/post/senate-republicans-block-cordray-as-obama-consumer-watchdog-nominee/2011/12/08/gIQA6j9BfO_blog.html
Washington Post
Dec. 8, 2011
In a long-awaited vote Thursday morning, Senate Republicans blocked the confirmation of President Obama’s nominee to lead his signature consumer watchdog agency, a move that prevents it from exercising many of its broad new powers.
Republicans relied on a procedural vote to keep the Senate from even considering former Ohio attorney general Richard Cordray for the top job at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Though GOP lawmakers have praised Cordray’s qualifications for the job -- he currently serves as the CFPB’s director of enforcement -- they have pledged to prevent any candidate from being confirmed unless significant structural change are made to the bureau.
Read more at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2chambers/post/senate-republicans-block-cordray-as-obama-consumer-watchdog-nominee/2011/12/08/gIQA6j9BfO_blog.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)