Showing posts with label Politicians. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politicians. Show all posts

Sunday, March 30, 2014

How can politicians make Obamacare the winning message? It’s in the polls.


Everyday Americans get up in the morning and go to work. They provide their services to companies and corporations. In return they expect a living wage. They expect that their work entitles them to financial security and healthcare security. For thirty plus years both have been eroding.

When President Obama ran for president in 2008 he understood that the root of every American’s economic security laid with ensuring every American would have access to affordable health care. He knew a single-payer health care system was the most effective system. However he was pragmatic enough to settle for RomneyCare on Viagra to begin the codification of health care as a right.


The reason health care reform has always eluded presidents of the past is because of ideological rigidity. President Obama minimized his ideological rigidity to the consternation of his left flank to get an imperfect law that will ultimately get improved. A few months ago I wrote a piece that placed this into context:


The genius in achieving the passage of Obamacare is immediately evident after reading the transcribed talk titled “A Brief History: Universal Health Care Efforts in the US” given by Karen S. Palmer MPH, MS in San Francisco at the Spring, 1999 Physicians For A National Health Program (PNHP) meeting. The talk revealed the headwinds that have blown over every President attempting to pass some form of universal healthcare. Doctor associations, insurance industry, unions, and other groups have always created opposition in some combination that guaranteed failure. She described the reason for failure as follows.

Political naiveté on the part of the reformers in failing to deal with the interest group opposition, ideology, historical experience, and the overall political context all played a key role in shaping how these groups identified and expressed their interests.


In effect, the very compromises President Obama has been knocked for are the compromises that allowed the passage of the Affordable Care Act. It was a running start that will need modification. The president is cognizant of this fact and he stated that much in the State Of The Union Speech on January 25th, 2011.



Please read below the fold for more on this story.



Daily Kos



How can politicians make Obamacare the winning message? It’s in the polls.

Friday, January 10, 2014

Politicians Are Prostitutes

At Those Damn Liars, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by Those Damn Liars and how it is used.

Log Files

Like many other Web sites, Those Damn Liars makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.

Cookies and Web Beacons

Those Damn Liars does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.

DoubleClick DART Cookie

  • Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on Those Damn Liars.
  • Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to Those Damn Liars and other sites on the Internet.
  • Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.

These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on Those Damn Liars send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.

Those Damn Liars has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.

You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. Those Damn Liars"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.

If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.


Politicians Are Prostitutes

Thursday, December 19, 2013

Do Politicians Work Less if Paid More?

At A Political Statement, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by A Political Statement and how it is used.

Log Files

Like many other Web sites, A Political Statement makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.

Cookies and Web Beacons

A Political Statement does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.

DoubleClick DART Cookie

  • Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on A Political Statement.
  • Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to A Political Statement and other sites on the Internet.
  • Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.

These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on A Political Statement send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.

A Political Statement has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.

You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. A Political Statement"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.

If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.


Do Politicians Work Less if Paid More?

Sunday, December 15, 2013

A Message to Politicians

At Those Damn Liars, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by Those Damn Liars and how it is used.

Log Files

Like many other Web sites, Those Damn Liars makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.

Cookies and Web Beacons

Those Damn Liars does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.

DoubleClick DART Cookie

  • Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on Those Damn Liars.
  • Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to Those Damn Liars and other sites on the Internet.
  • Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.

These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on Those Damn Liars send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.

Those Damn Liars has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.

You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. Those Damn Liars"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.

If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.


A Message to Politicians

Monday, December 2, 2013

Why Politicians Don"t Get Mass Transit


(Newser) – In the wake of the train disaster in the Bronx, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood took to MSNBC and called on lawmakers to invest in America’s “50-year-old transit systems.” But when it comes to public transit, that plea will probably fall on deaf ears. “Mass transit is doomed in the United States,” writes Alex Pareene at Salon. Across the country, far more is spent on roads and drivers than trains and buses. Why? Because driving is the province of the wealthy. “For most of the political class, everyone they know and interact with owns a car.”


America’s political system inherently “heavily favors the interests of the rural and the suburban over the urban,” Pareene writes. But even in subway-loving New York City, public transit-friendly policies are dead-on-arrival; not coincidentally, the state’s governor drives. Minneapolis ought to have a great public transit system. Instead, its suburban system is ambitious, while the urban system “is unreliable, neglected, and nearly impossible to navigate.” If these dense, liberal cities have “so much trouble creating and maintaining a decent mass transit system,” Pareene wonders, “what hope is there for the rest of America’s cities?” Click for his full column.




Politics from Newser



Why Politicians Don"t Get Mass Transit

Saturday, November 30, 2013

Obama Scores Highest Very Favorables Among Currently Serving Politicians

barack obama
A new historic low, brought to you by the Republican Party.

According to a new Economist/YouGov.com poll, just 6% approve of the way Congress is handling its job. Seventy-two percent disapprove. That puts Congress the historic low of a 6% approval rating. “Only 10 percent of Democrats, 7 percent of Republicans, and 3 percent of independents approve of Congress,” the poll said.


Speaker John Boehner might want to wipe that smirk off of his ObamaCare whinging grimace, because he has a very favorable rating of just 5%, while President Obama has a very favorable approval rating of 22%, which is the highest very favorable rating of any currently serving politician in the poll. (Hillary Clinton scored the highest at 27% very favorable.)


Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell joins Boehner in that 5%. So only 5% really like these two Republicans – but one things Republicans do well is hate. So, Obama has 47% very unfavorable compared to Boehner’s 40% very unfavorable and McConnell’s 35% very unfavorable.


Obama has an overall 41% favorable to 55% unfavorable, while only 4% said they don’t know. Boehner has overall favorables of 22%, with 60% unfavorables, while 19% don’t know. McConnell scores 19% overall favorables, 54% unfavorables, while 28% don’t know.


The two Republicans are benefiting from higher “don’t knows”, while to put this in perspective, only 14% say they don’t know about Nancy Pelosi and yet she is not the current Speaker of the House. It makes sense that since Republicans go negative most often, they’ve solidified the hate over the “don’t knows”. What they never manage to do is lock up very many “favorables”.


“Opinions of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid don’t seem to be affected by the filibuster vote,” according to the poll. “Unfavorable opinions of him continue to outnumber favorable ones, but he scores modestly better than his GOP counterpart, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. And Congressional Democrats fare better than Congressional Republicans.”


These bad poll numbers might seem distressing for Congress and Republicans especially, but Republicans don’t mind getting dirty in order to smear the other side. And that’s what is happening here. By obstructing everything and turning this Congress into a historically lazy Congress, Republicans bring down the public’s trust in Congress and bring down the morale of hard core Democrats – the very people who vote in midterms.


This is a deliberate strategy meant to depress the vote as an added bonus to pretending a Democrat wasn’t re-elected to the White House. It works because too much of the public is misinformed about how our government works, and they blame both parties for the “gridlock” narrative, well established by the ever helpful stenographers in the mainstream media.


Republicans only have charge of one chamber in Congress, and that’s the House — where they work less days and get historically less done than any other Congress.


After all of the relentless negativity aimed at Obama’s signature legislation, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the fact that he has higher very favorables than any other currently serving politician polled is a testament to Obama’s consistently high likability.




About Sarah Jones (2,188 Posts)


Since joining PoliticusUSA in February of 2009, Sarah has been quoted by The Atlantic Wire, The Week, The Richard Dawkins Foundation and more. Along with her life long interest in feminism and social justice, Sarah has a background in TV/Film (TV host, news anchor, producer & writer) and has written and produced award winning documentaries.

Sarah graduated Magna Cum Laude and Phi Beta Kappa with a major in Psychology & Latin.



Website: → Politicus USA



Connect with Sarah Jones






PoliticusUSA



Obama Scores Highest Very Favorables Among Currently Serving Politicians

Friday, September 27, 2013

Why UK politicians should be wary of Azerbaijan"s overtures | Emma Hughes


Party conferences are exactly where Britain’s stance towards corrupt dictators should be up for debate, jazz receptions or not


Whichever way you turned in Brighton last week there was a limp sandwich or warm glass of wine at hand. The Labour party conference brought with it the usual deluge of lobby group drink receptions. Should delegates have steered away from Fujitsu’s business connector’s reception or WWF’s Coca-Cola-sponsored water policy event they may have stumbled upon the European Azerbaijan Society’s (TEAS) jazz reception.



Fronted by lobbying guru Lionel Zetter, the London-based European Azerbaijan Society exists to raise “awareness of Azerbaijan” and foster “closer economic, political and cultural links between that country and the nations of Europe.” In reality this means it is representing the interests of the mega-rich and repressive Aliyev regime. Over the last two weeks TEAS have held jazz receptions at the Lib Dems and Labour party conferences, next week it will be the Conservatives’ turn. TEAS are using Azerbaijan’s long association with jazz music to promote not just the country’s music, but also the idea that it is a nation that Britain should do business with.



Life in Azerbaijan is starkly different from TEAS facade of drinks and jazz. Azerbaijan’s ruling elite have used the country’s oil and gas wealth to establish a repressive system where police constantly monitor people, there is almost no press freedom and even the most peaceful of protests are violently broken up. In the past 18 months the Azerbaijani government have conducted what Human Rights Watch calls “a deliberate, abusive strategy to limit dissent” as it attempts to stifle opposition in the run up to the Azerbaijan presidential elections. In January in the town of Ismayilli, batons and teargas were used to break up demonstrations and in March water cannons and rubber bullets were fired on a protest in Baku – afterwards police arrested seven members of the youth movement NIDA for planning to incite violence, despite the demo remaining peaceful throughout. Human Rights Club have spent the last few months documenting political prisoner cases, they estimate there are over 100 political prisoners in Azerbaijan’s jails – two of whom were expected to be election candidates until their incarceration forced them to withdraw.



TEAS is as close to the regime as you can get without it being run by a member of the Aliyev family. The organisation was created in 2008 by Tale Heydarov; his father, Kamaladdin Heydarov, is Azerbaijani minister for emergency situations. A US embassy cable leaked by Wikileaks described Heydarov as possibly “more powerful than the president himself … Heydarov controls more visible assets and wealth within the country than the president”.



TEAS have long enjoyed a cosy relationship with UK MPs. They founded the “Conservative Friends of Azerbaijan”, which has 25 Tory parliamentarians in it and they’ve also donated to the Labour pressure group Progress . In addition they provide secretarial support to the Azerbaijan all-party parliamentary group – whose remit they have successfully framed to include no mention of human rights or democracy. They have also funded several UK MPs on all expenses paid trips to Azerbaijan including Mark Field, Gerry Sutcliffe, Stephen Hammond and the speaker at next week’s jazz reception – Christopher Pincher.



Azerbaijan has had a “special relationship” with Britain for many years, thanks to the country’s oil and gas wealth and in particular its importance for BP. In 1994 BP led a consortium of international oil companies in signing the “contract of the century”, which gave BP the right to extract Azeri oil. This single deal was hugely important for BP whose daily extraction rate of 1.5 million barrels of oil was in danger of halving when the contract was signed. Azerbaijan is still important to BP – out of its 20 top-producing wells of gross hydrocarbons 11 are situated off the coast of Baku.


Last week BP signed another mega deal with Azerbaijan , as a lead company in one of the world’s biggest ever gas sales agreements – worth up to $ 100bn over 25 years. BP plans to pump the gas from 26 new gas wells in the Caspian Sea, over 4,000km to Europe via the yet to be built Euro-Caspian Mega Pipeline. This huge piece of infrastructure would create militarised strips of land that cross whole countries, where the pipeline was guarded with force, and normal civic rights are suspended. People living along the pipeline would experience increased surveillance, restrictions on access to community land and enforced censorship of locals.



Securing increased gas revenues is crucial for the Azerbaijani elite now that oil production has peaked. The people of Azerbaijan, however, are unlikely to see many of the profits. As the uncovered data in Offshore Leaks revealed, Azerbaijan’s fossil fuel wealth has a nasty habit of ending up in offshore accounts.



Of course party conferences are exactly where Britain’s stance towards corrupt dictators – even ones offering gigantic gas deals – should be up for debate. In his speech at the Labour conference Douglas Alexander considered what progressive internationalism could look like. The prioritisation of human rights over the pursuit of fossil fuels is a crucial part of such a policy – and no amount of boogie, blues or bebop can distract from that.





theguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds









Comment is free | theguardian.com

Why UK politicians should be wary of Azerbaijan"s overtures | Emma Hughes

Saturday, September 21, 2013

Politicians Serving Wall Street, Not Main Street


It’s become common over the past year or two to note how well Wall Street is doing while Main Street is still struggling.


Sadly, that tale of two economies has resulted from a conscious choice by those at the very top levels of our nation’s financial and political elites.


The choice was inadvertently highlighted in a recent USA Today column by former U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. In that column, Pelosi describes some of the political dynamics surrounding the beginning of the bailout era five years ago.


In Pelosi’s telling of the story, public opinion was never mentioned once. That’s significant because public opinion was primarily focused on Main Street while the elites were focused on Wall Street. Those in power didn’t want to hear about anything but the financiers.


From the beginning, public opinion was hostile. The outrage was so strong that it eventually led to the creation of both the Tea Party and the Occupy movements. While Congress rarely listens to those it is supposed to represent, in this case, they couldn’t help but hear the shouting. Stunningly, with both the Republican president and Democratic congressional leadership pleading for $ 700 billion, Congress initially listened to Main Street and rejected the bailout legislation. That created panic among the elites, and the stock market fell almost 800 points the next day.


After the market reacted, Congress reversed course.


The legislators made a conscious decision to back Wall Street rather than Main Street. They voted to reassure the bankers and ignore the rest of us. Crony capitalism won. Free market competition lost. Neil Barofsky, the special inspector general for the TARP bailouts, recounts the maddening tale in a great book, “Bailout: An Inside Account of How Washington Abandoned Main Street While Rescuing Wall Street”.


In the aftermath, an argument erupted about who was to blame. Conservatives tended to point to government failures. Liberals pointed in the opposite direction.


A better understanding comes when you realize that the financial wizards and the government officials were on the same team. One day Henry Paulson was chairman of Goldman Sachs, the next he was Treasury secretary. One day Robert Rubin was Treasury secretary, the next he was running Citibank.


In the years since the bailouts, nothing has really changed. The biggest banks weren’t broken up; they’ve gotten bigger. They still require ongoing government subsidies to remain profitable. That reality is bad enough. But what makes it even tougher is that the political class is proud of the two-tier economy they’ve created. In her column, Nancy Pelosi said bailing out the banks “required responsible, bipartisan cooperation and leadership.”


A better description would be to say that the bailouts forced the political class to make it clear that they listen to Wall Street over Main Street.




RealClearPolitics – Articles



Politicians Serving Wall Street, Not Main Street

Monday, August 12, 2013

Politicians Given Invisible License Plates to Avoid Fines



There are rules for the common people and rules for their “leaders,” and only in rare cases do the same rules cover both. Chris Morran at the Consumerist poi…
Video Rating: 4 / 5



Politicians Given Invisible License Plates to Avoid Fines

Wednesday, July 24, 2013

Big Labor Finally Getting The Shaft From Democrat Politicians


labor unions SC Big labor finally getting the shaft from Democrat politicians


It seems big labor is getting nervous about anticipated disastrous effects on the healthcare benefits of union membership by Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act. So nervous are they in fact that James P. Hoffa and organized labor comrades Joseph Hansen and Don Taylor addressed their concerns in personal letter form to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, a clear break from the more conventional late night exchange of cash and instructions so common between labor kingpins and Democrat politicians.


“We can no longer stand silent in the face of elements of the Affordable Care Act that will destroy the very health and wellbeing of our members,” wrote the 3 union bosses to leaders of the political party to which organized labor donated some $ 800 million in 2008 and $ 700 million two years later. “Congress wrote this law; we voted for you. We have a problem; you need to fix it.” Though Hoffa didn’t specifically include “When we buy politicians, we expect ‘em to STAY bought,” the implication was clear enough.


Four years ago, there were no more vocal or committed supporters of Obama’s signature healthcare plan than organized labor. But now, Hoffa and the others are whining that “…the ACA will shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits, but destroy the foundation of the 40 hour work week that is the backbone of the American middle class.” Yet none of the damaging contents of the Affordable Care Act have changed during the past 4 years. So why is labor suddenly in a panic?


The ObamaCare employer mandate requiring that employers of over 50 full time (40 hour/week) workers provide healthcare or pay a stiff penalty is being met with a sudden influx of part time employees. In fact, part time hires are outpacing full time in 2013 by over 4-1, a complete reversal of employment figures for 2012. This destruction of the 40 hour week complained of by Hoffa means fewer dollars for employees and a black eye for unions paid to protect their interests.


But of greatest concern to labor bosses are the multi-employer or Taft Hartley health plans currently carried by some 22 million union members. Unions pride themselves on their ability to provide these Cadillac health plans to members at reasonable prices. (Employers of course pay the bulk of the tab.)


However, as ObamaCare requirements are certain to drive premium prices sky high, employers will counter by dropping the plans when unions contracts expire,  placing members in the individual, ObamaCare exchange market. Once placed in the ObamaCare market without insurance, employees will qualify for subsidies.


BUT, why join a union or maintain membership if one of the principle reasons–the long-term availability of first rate healthcare at very reasonable prices–no longer exists?! One of the biggest draws for joining a union is being taken away from big labor, and they do NOT like it!


So Hoffa and other labor bosses now want to have their cake and eat it too–they are demanding that members be permitted to keep their Cadillac plans AND that the premiums be subsidized with tax dollars, a nice, multi-billion dollar concession to union members that ObamaCare does not make available to anyone! Again, none of the provisions of the employer mandate have changed since labor fought tooth and nail for the passage of ObamaCare. But then, what union boss would have dreamed that he and his membership would be treated like commoners when ObamaCare actually came due for implementation? After all, Democrats are still in charge, Democrats so handsomely bought and paid for election after election.


The quandary in which union bosses find themselves today was summed up 35 years ago in the movie “Animal House” when Otter told Flounder: “Hey, you “f*****” up. You trusted us!” What a joy to watch Hoffa and the rest suddenly realize they’ve been suckered by folks who have been residing for so long in their own back pocket.


Please share this post with your friends and comment below. If you haven’t already, take a moment to sign up for our free newsletter above and friend us on Twitter and Facebook to get real time updates.



Western Journalism



Big Labor Finally Getting The Shaft From Democrat Politicians

Friday, June 28, 2013

Analysis: Brazil"s mass protests peak, ball in politicians" court

BRASILIA (Reuters) – The massive protests that paralyzed Brazil last week appear to have peaked after sending the country’s shaken political establishment a loud message that it needs to change its ways.


Reuters: Top News



Analysis: Brazil"s mass protests peak, ball in politicians" court

Monday, June 10, 2013

The nonprofits that profit politicians


Florida Gov. Rick Scott, who opened his own wallet as a private citizen during the 2009-2010 health care debate to fund an anti-Affordable Care Act group

Florida Gov. Rick Scott is premier example, having funded an anti-Affordable Care Act group.





Here’s a riddle: What do you call a group that raises and spends money to produce television ads and mail advertisements raising the profile of an individual politician ahead of a likely campaign?


In 2013, you might call it a nonprofit.







Amid the spring uproar over the Internal Revenue Service targeting conservative nonprofit groups for extra scrutiny, the political world has largely overlooked a fresh innovation in the world of outside spending: nonprofits organized around broad issues of public interest that actually function to advance the ambitions of a single potential candidate.


A pair of 2014 Senate contenders have led the way: In North Carolina, House Speaker Thom Tillis has benefited from the activities of a group called the North Carolina House Legislative Partners, a 501(c)(4) set up this year to bolster the issue agenda of Republicans in the state Legislature.


In practice, that has meant running TV ads statewide featuring Tillis talking about the great things state Republicans are working to accomplish. Tillis formally announced a challenge to Democratic Sen. Kay Hagan last week, months after those nonprofit ads began running.


In Iowa, meanwhile, wealthy former energy executive Mark Jacobs has set up an education-focused nonprofit dubbed Reaching Higher Iowa. The group launched early this year and registered as a nonprofit entity with the Iowa secretary of state’s office, according to Jacobs. Last month, it mailed out a lengthy brochure about RHI’s education agenda that also featured three photos of Jacobs and a bio describing him as a “complex problem-solver” with a “long track record of leadership in civic and social issues.”


Jacobs is also actively exploring a campaign for the Republican nomination for Iowa’s open Senate seat and has spent weeks introducing himself to GOP leaders and showing up at local party events.


The potential candidates and their advisers play down the extent to which these nonprofits are explicitly intended to lay the groundwork for Senate races: Jacobs points out that he founded RHI before Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin announced his retirement and created an open-seat race. Tillis advisers say the legislative nonprofit is more than a vehicle for the speaker, and that other Republicans will take over its leadership now that he’s running for Senate.


At the same time, Republicans involved in both efforts don’t deny there’s some political advantage to the outside-group activities.


“Is there some benefit because, you know, I’ve been engaged directly in this and more people know me in the state than would have known me six months ago? Sure, I’m sure that’s the case,” Jacobs said. “But I’ve been doing what I’ve been doing on education, in terms of trying to raise public awareness on it, because I think that’s an important component of tackling the problem.”


Tillis adviser Paul Shumaker makes a similar argument about the Tarheel outfit. Tillis was the public face of the group because he was speaker at the time it was formed, but there’s every expectation that others will use the group as a tool for public communications going forward — and that state legislative caucuses in other states will do the same. Several sitting governors have benefited from the spending of nonprofit groups set up to support their agendas, such as the pro-Andrew Cuomo Committee to Save New York, in the Empire State, and the Chris Christie-boosting Committee for our Children’s Future in New Jersey.


“Anybody in the House leadership or in the Senate leadership moving forward on the policy side, needs to have an arm that they can go out and communicate with,” Shumaker said. “It is very much a tool that people are seeing governors use. You see the president using it. You’re going to see legislative leaders using it now.”




POLITICO – TOP Stories



The nonprofits that profit politicians

The nonprofits that profit politicians


Florida Gov. Rick Scott, who opened his own wallet as a private citizen during the 2009-2010 health care debate to fund an anti-Affordable Care Act group

Florida Gov. Rick Scott is premier example, having funded an anti-Affordable Care Act group.





Here’s a riddle: What do you call a group that raises and spends money to produce television ads and mail advertisements raising the profile of an individual politician ahead of a likely campaign?


In 2013, you might call it a nonprofit.







Amid the spring uproar over the Internal Revenue Service targeting conservative nonprofit groups for extra scrutiny, the political world has largely overlooked a fresh innovation in the world of outside spending: nonprofits organized around broad issues of public interest that actually function to advance the ambitions of a single potential candidate.


A pair of 2014 Senate contenders have led the way: In North Carolina, House Speaker Thom Tillis has benefited from the activities of a group called the North Carolina House Legislative Partners, a 501(c)(4) set up this year to bolster the issue agenda of Republicans in the state Legislature.


In practice, that has meant running TV ads statewide featuring Tillis talking about the great things state Republicans are working to accomplish. Tillis formally announced a challenge to Democratic Sen. Kay Hagan last week, months after those nonprofit ads began running.


In Iowa, meanwhile, wealthy former energy executive Mark Jacobs has set up an education-focused nonprofit dubbed Reaching Higher Iowa. The group launched early this year and registered as a nonprofit entity with the Iowa secretary of state’s office, according to Jacobs. Last month, it mailed out a lengthy brochure about RHI’s education agenda that also featured three photos of Jacobs and a bio describing him as a “complex problem-solver” with a “long track record of leadership in civic and social issues.”


Jacobs is also actively exploring a campaign for the Republican nomination for Iowa’s open Senate seat and has spent weeks introducing himself to GOP leaders and showing up at local party events.


The potential candidates and their advisers play down the extent to which these nonprofits are explicitly intended to lay the groundwork for Senate races: Jacobs points out that he founded RHI before Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin announced his retirement and created an open-seat race. Tillis advisers say the legislative nonprofit is more than a vehicle for the speaker, and that other Republicans will take over its leadership now that he’s running for Senate.


At the same time, Republicans involved in both efforts don’t deny there’s some political advantage to the outside-group activities.


“Is there some benefit because, you know, I’ve been engaged directly in this and more people know me in the state than would have known me six months ago? Sure, I’m sure that’s the case,” Jacobs said. “But I’ve been doing what I’ve been doing on education, in terms of trying to raise public awareness on it, because I think that’s an important component of tackling the problem.”


Tillis adviser Paul Shumaker makes a similar argument about the Tarheel outfit. Tillis was the public face of the group because he was speaker at the time it was formed, but there’s every expectation that others will use the group as a tool for public communications going forward — and that state legislative caucuses in other states will do the same. Several sitting governors have benefited from the spending of nonprofit groups set up to support their agendas, such as the pro-Andrew Cuomo Committee to Save New York, in the Empire State, and the Chris Christie-boosting Committee for our Children’s Future in New Jersey.


“Anybody in the House leadership or in the Senate leadership moving forward on the policy side, needs to have an arm that they can go out and communicate with,” Shumaker said. “It is very much a tool that people are seeing governors use. You see the president using it. You’re going to see legislative leaders using it now.”




POLITICO – TOP Stories



The nonprofits that profit politicians