Political Mojo | Mother Jones

Half of Scott Walker's Cash Comes From Out-of-State Dark-Money Donors

Andy Kroll — Sat, 26 May 2012 15:22:46 +0000

Wisconsin's June 5 gubernatorial recall, pitting Gov. Scott Walker against Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, is no mere statewide race. It's a national fight. The Tea Party Express group calls Wisconsin "ground zero for the battle against Obama's liberal agenda."

It's not surprising, then, to learn that out-of-state money is pouring into the Walker recall at a record pace—and it's powering the efforts of Democrats, Republicans, interest groups, and unions alike.

In Wisconsin's 2006 gubernatorial election, as the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports, out-of-state campaign donations made up 15 percent of all donations. In 2010 it was 9 percent. But in the Walker recall? It's a staggering 57 percent.

According to an analysis by the political-money-watching Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, $3 out of every $5 raised by Walker came from outside Wisconsin. Walker's largest donors include Texas homebuilding king and Swift Boat for Veterans backer Bob Perry, Las Vegas casino tycoon Sheldon Adelson, and Richard DeVos, heir to Amway fortune. A little more than $1 of every $10 given to Barrett was out-of-state campaign cash.

Walker raised $13 million in the first three months of 2012, bringing his total fundraising haul since January 1, 2011, to $25 million. Walker benefitted from a quirk in state election law allowing him raising unlimited campaign cash for months to fend off the recall challenge. Barrett raised $750,000 in the first 25 days after entering the race in late March.

Interest groups bankrolled by out-of-state cash are also playing a pivotal role in the recall. The Republican and Democratic Governors Associations, both based in Washington, DC, have together ponied up nearly $7 million for the Walker recall. The RGA, as Mother Jones has reported, is the GOP's corporate-funded dark money machine, shuffling tens of millions in campaign cash to boost Republicans and bash Democrats nationwide. Labor unions have pumped millions more into the groups We Are Wisconsin, which supported Democrats in last summer's state Senate recall races and supports Barrett now, and Wisconsin for Falk, which supported Kathleen Falk in the recall Democratic primary and opened field offices around the state.

Corn on "Hardball": Trump Revives the Birther Meme

Sat, 26 May 2012 00:14:37 +0000

David Corn and Salon's Joan Walsh joined guest host Michael Smerconish on MSNBC's Hardball to discuss Donald Trump's role in the most recent iteration of the birther conspiracy. Why won't Mitt Romney repudiate The Donald?

David Corn is Mother Jones' Washington bureau chief. For more of his stories, click here. He's also on Twitter.

Senate Panel Advances Measure To Broaden Military Access to Abortion

Kate Sheppard — Fri, 25 May 2012 21:26:00 +0000

On Thursday, the Senate Armed Services Committee approved an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for 2013 that would allow greater access to abortions for women in the military and their families.

The measure, from New Hampshire Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D), would allow the military to pay for ending pregnancies that are the result of rape or incest. Current Department of Defense policy only provides abortion coverage if the life of the mother is at stake. Under the 1976 Hyde Amendment, federal money cannot be used to provide abortion services, except in the case of rape, incest, or if the woman's life is endangered. But since 1979, the DOD has had an even stricter limit on abortions, refusing to cover them in cases of rape despite the high rate of sexual assaults in the military. (Over 3,000 sexual assaults were reported in the armed services in 2010 alone.)

If Shaheen's measure passes, the 400,000 women in the armed services will have the same access to abortion that other federal employees get. If a Department of Health and Human Services employee working in Washington, D.C. is raped, her government health insurance plan will pay for an abortion if she wants one. But if an Army medic serving in Afghanistan is raped and wants an abortion, she can't use her government health insurance to cover it—she'll have to pay out of her own pocket. And even when she does pay for it, she won't be able to get the abortion at a military hospital, because that's illegal, too.

Attempts to lift the military's abortion ban failed in 2010 and 2011, but advocates are launching an all-out push this year through the Stand With Servicewomen campaign launched by retired military officers and a coalition of reproductive rights groups. Given all the attention abortion has received over the past year, you can bet the military abortion debate will be contentious this time around, too.

11 Awful John Edwards Pickup Lines

Tim Murphy — Fri, 25 May 2012 18:48:57 +0000

The way we live now: On Friday, ABC News reported that former Democratic vice presidential nominee John Edwards has been flirting with a female alternate juror at his trial for allegedly making illegal payments from his campaign fund to cover up an affair. Per the story:

Since the alternates were identified last Thursday, it has been impossible to ignore the dynamic between Edwards and one of the female alternates, an attractive young woman with jet-black hair, who seems to have been flirting with Edwards for days.

The juror clearly instigated the exchanges. She smiles at him. He smiles at her. She giggles. He blushes.

But what does he say? We took a stab at it:

"Want to see what a $400 haircut buys? [Winks.]"
"Improper use of federal matching funds? More like matching fun, amirite? [Winks.]"
"[Points at electronic tracking bracelet.] [Winks.]"
"Hello, voir dear [long pause] [winks]."
"Shall we adjourn to my place? [Winks.]"
"I'll bring the handcuffs [winks]."
"You've been acquitting yourself nicely [creepy laughter] [points fingers] [claps] [winks].."
"They say justice is blind. But I can't take my eyes off of you [winks]."
"We can build one America, baby [winks]."
"Did it hurt...when you fell from heaven? Because I know a good personal injury lawyer [winks]."

And for old times' sake...

"My daddy worked at a mill all his life."

Okay, now we need to take a shower.

SPLC Highlights New Extremist Leaders To Watch

Stephanie Mencimer — Fri, 25 May 2012 18:12:09 +0000

Michael Boldin, founder of the Tenth Amendment Center Gage SkidmoreThe Southern Poverty Law Center published a new report this week on 30 up-and-coming leaders of the radical right. There are some old familiars on the list, like David Duke, and many others who probably won't come as much of a surprise to regular Mother Jones readers. SPLC singles out some of the chorus of anti-Muslim activists like Pam Geller, Frank Gaffney and David Yerushalmi as people to keep an eye on. There are some gay-bashers in there, too. Birther-conspiracy theorist Joseph Farah, the founder of WorldNet Daily, also makes the list. But not everyone on the group seems to rise to the level of menace that SPLC suggests.

Among those might be Mike Vanderboegh, a former militia activist from Alabama. Vanderboegh is probably most famous these days for having encouraged readers of his blog to break the windows of Democratic Party headquarters after the passage of health care reform, which prompted some of his readers to toss bricks through the windows of a few Democratic congressional offices.

Vanderboegh, though, is a bit more of a complicated character than the SPLC has made him out to be. His rhetoric is certainly inflammatory, but it's also mostly confined to his blog, which has a very small following. Vanderboegh has also helped bring to light some evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the government in the "Fast and Furious" gun scandal, in which the federal government allowed guns to be illegally exported to Mexico in the hopes of tracking them to major drug cartel leaders. (The ATF agents ended up losing track of thousands of the guns, which later turned up at crime scenes in Mexico and the US.) He's also got a sense of humor, a rare quality in an extremist. He responded to his inclusion on the list by writing a blog post about it that included a photoshopped picture of Mark Potok, the SPLC senior fellow who tracks right-wing extremism, wearing a tin-foil hat.

Another entry on SPLC's list that seems slightly off-base is Michael Boldin, the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center, which urges states to nullify federal laws they see as unconstitutional. SPLC links Boldin with the "Patriot movement" and far-right extremists. But it overlooks a lot of the issues that Boldin himself has championed. I met him two years ago at a Tenther conference in Atlanta, which definitely featured some fringey right-wingers, including the John Birch Society. But Boldin stuck out for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that he is a California hipster who travels with tins of sardines in his suitcase to ensure that he eats enough omega-3 fatty acids.

Boldin got into politics through his opposition to the Iraq war, not through the tea party or any other right-wing cause. He is a libertarian, and believes the Tenth Amendment applies to all sorts of things that right-wingers generally wouldn't agree with. For instance, he and his organization support pot legalization and the right of states to legalize gay marriage. Lately, though, he has been focused on state opposition to the new National Defense Authorization Act because he believes it could allow for the indefinite detention of American citizens—a position that puts him squarely on the side of the American Civil Liberties Union. That's why he was a little surprised to find himself on the SPLC list. He told me in an email:

I think these people are just lazy and aren't paying attention to the work we do, the columns I write, or the speeches I give. Or, maybe they're just exploiting fear of real radicals who use propaganda to advocate their wars, racism to justify their torture, and fear to promote their indefinite detention scheme - both in Guantanamo and here in the U.S. Then again, I just happen to think that most of those dangerous people are wearing suits in Washington D.C.

SPLC deserves credit for keeping tabs on the nation's potentially violent fringe elements, but it does seem like they are occasionally casting too wide a net in their efforts to identify the next Timothy McVeigh. But then again, it only takes one guy like him to create mass carnage. Maybe when it comes to monitoring extremism, you can't really have too much information.

We're Still at War: Photo of the Day for May 25, 2012

Fri, 25 May 2012 14:08:12 +0000

Service members pose for a photo with television host Kelly Ripa after the taping of Live with Kelly during Fleet Week New York 2012. This marks the 25th year the city has celebrated the nation's sea services. This year, the seven-day event coincides with he commemoration of the Bicentennial of the War of 1812 and will host more than 6,000 service members from the Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard team in addition to coalition ships from around the world. U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist MC2 Drae Parker.

Targeting America's "Stand Your Ground" Laws

Adam Weinstein — Fri, 25 May 2012 10:45:00 +0000

Nearly three months after the death of Florida teen Trayvon Martin put the spotlight on "stand your ground," a new national organization is pressing thousands of lawmakers across the country to "reform or repeal" laws that sanction the controversial self-defense doctrine.

Second Chance on Shoot First, a nonprofit started in April by New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg and a collection of progressive and civil-rights organizations, is targeting 26 states that legalized "stand your ground"—or "shoot first," as the group calls it. "Prior to 'Shoot First,' people had a traditional duty to retreat from a situation outside their home when they could safely do so," the campaign's website states. "Now, afforded immunity and a presumption of lawfulness by the law, armed individuals can seek out opportunities to use deadly force outside their homes. And the hands of law enforcement and prosecutors are tied."

Mother Jones has reported about how the National Rifle Association and the right-wing American Legislative Exchange Council lobbied nationwide for the laws, and how the laws have hampered law enforcement in numerous cases—including the investigation into Martin's fatal shooting.

This week, Ginny Simmons, the director of Second Chance, sent letters to more than 4,000 legislators in states with the lax defense standards, urging them to modify or discard the legal guidelines. "[E]xperience has now shown that these laws encourage vigilantism, sow confusion among police, and stymie prosecutors," she wrote in the letter. "People carrying guns now feel emboldened to resolve conflicts with firearms even if they could safely walk away, and police and prosecutors are uncertain about which shootings may be instances of legitimate self-defense and which are murders."

Continue Reading »

This Week in Dark Money

Gavin Aronsen — Fri, 25 May 2012 10:00:00 +0000

A quick look at the week that was in the world of political dark money...

Citizens United fever: The debate over the controversial Supreme Court ruling continues. Curious how it could be undone? Check out our DIY guide to ditching the ruling. For more details, iWatch News reports on the argument over whether a constitutional amendment is the best way to overturn it. MoJo's Andy Kroll explores whether Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who just asked Supreme Court to reconsider its decision, is reclaiming his status as a campaign-finance reformer. Meanwhile, dark-money fans are lining up to tell the court not to touch Citizens United.

Going soft on Obama (sort of): The New York Times' Jeremy Peters deconstructs the latest ad from Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS, in which a mom complains that President Obama's policies have forced her grown children to move back home. The ad's partly the work of Larry McCarthy, the producer of the infamous 1988 Willie Horton ad:

McCarthy's new ad, though, strikes a far softer tone. It repeatedly uses the word "change" and breaks from the attack-ad norm by employing professional actors.

Oppo-research group targets Dems: Andy Kroll reports on Media Tracker, a "nonpartisan" opposition-research group founded by to dig up dirt on Democrats that can be used in attack ads. "I'm talking about creating long-lasting impact for the conservative movement," says its founder, a former Republican National Committee staffer. Meanwhile, the Obama campaign has a sophisticated ad shop ready to fight back against the likes of Media Trackers, Slate's Sasha Issenberg reports.

Where are the liberal megadonors? Also at Slate, Dave Weigel takes a look at why the super-PAC-fueled ideological purging of unworthy GOP candidates isn't happening on the left. As Michael Vachon, spokesman for conservatives' favorite boogeyman George Soros, explains, "The reason there's not a Club for Growth-like organization on the left is that there is a greater diversity of views in the Democratic Party than there is in the Republican Party. There's less of a hierarchically enforced ideological structure."

Super-PACs keep the money flowing to state races: The Sunlight Foundation's Anupama Narayanswamy reports that super-PACs spent nearly $1 million ahead of Tuesday's primaries in Arkansas and Kentucky. A 21-year-old millionaire's pro-Ron Paul super-PAC provided the majority of the $766,000 in outside spending that propelled Republican congressional candidate Thomas Massie to victory in the Bluegrass State. (MoJo's Tim Murphy has more his group here. Watch a campaign ad below.) Meanwhile, real-estate interests have spent a "mind boggling" $700,000 attempting to oust a 14-year incumbent in a Republican House primary in California.

A Wall Street slump for Romney: Barack Obama's difficult relationship with Wall Street donors is well known. Now Mitt Romney is having troubles too, reports the Center for Responsive Politics. Since April, the securities and investment industry has been donating significantly less to his campaign as well as the pro-Romney super-PAC Restore Our Future. But Romney is still outraising Obama, who took in just $166,000 from the financial industry last month (and less from Silicon Valley, too).

Obama Taps Nuclear "Agnostic" for Top Regulatory Post

Kate Sheppard — Thu, 24 May 2012 20:13:13 +0000

Politico reports that President Obama will nominate Allison Macfarlane to serve as the new chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The current chairman, Greg Jaczko, resigned on Monday under pressure from panel members more sympathetic to the nuclear industry.

Mcfarlane is an associate professor of Environmental Policy and Social Sciences at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va. She has a PhD in geology from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and wrote a book about the challenges of nuclear waste disposal, Uncertainty Underground: Yucca Mountain and the Nation’s High-Level Nuclear Waste. She is currently a member of the Blue Ribbon Commission on the future of nuclear that Energy Secretary Steven Chu created in 2010.

Given the pressure put on Jaczko, one has to wonder if Macfarlane will make it through Senate confirmation. She's been highly critical of using Yucca Mountain to dispose of nuclear waste, a favorite issue for the industry and supporters in Congress. And she says she's an "agnostic" on nuclear energy, as she described on the Atomic Show podcast in 2007:

In terms of nuclear energy, I would describe myself as an agnostic. I'm neither pro-nuclear or anti-nuclear. I think nuclear has been doing a good job in the United states and some other industrial countries at providing a good, reliable energy, and they've been improving on that. At the same time, I think I think in terms of an expansion in nuclear power over the next 50 years or something, nuclear has lot of liabilities and I don't know if it can get over them.

In a statement, Senate Majority Leader (and vocal Yucca critic) Harry Reid indicated that he would seek to move her confirmation forward alongside the reconfirmation of current commissioner Kristine Svinicki. Reid has expressed "grave concerns" about reappointing Svinicki, but seemed to indicate that perhaps there could be agreement on moving the two forward together. "The nuclear industry has a perfect opportunity to demonstrate a commitment to safety by supporting Dr. Macfarlane’s nomination," said Reid.

We're Still at War: Photo of the Day for May 24, 2012

Thu, 24 May 2012 16:21:57 +0000

US Army Pvt. Richard Mitchell, Provincial Reconstruction Team Zabul, visits with children of a village in northern Qalat on May 16, 2012. The children of the village received humanitarian aid from the PRT during the US and Romanian's visit to assess security and irrigation in the village. US Air Force photo by Senior Airman Joshua Turner.

I Can Haz Cheezburger Can Haz Anti-Lamar Smith Billboard

Tim Murphy — Thu, 24 May 2012 13:48:21 +0000

Rep. Lamar Smith needs 50 percent of the vote in next Tuesday's Texas primary to avoid a runoff and all but guarantee a 14th term in the House. He'll probably get it—there's been no indication that far-right gadfly Richard Mack or Austin tech entrepreneur Richard Morgan pose much of a threat at this point.

On Monday, Test PAC, the project of a band of ticked-off Redditors upset at Smith for sponsoring the Stop Online Piracy Act, ran its first television ads in Austin and San Antonio, to go along with a billboard on Interstate 10. It was a small buy—just $10,200—but noteworthy in that it was the first time the online community had entered the campaign finance game. Now another group, Fight for the Future, founded in late 2011 to educate and mobilize Internet users about the perils of SOPA, is up with a billboard of its own. Or two billboards, rather—one of which is just down the street from Smith's San Antonio district office. The kicker: Funding for the project came in part from Ben Huh, CEO and godfather of the I Can Haz Cheezburger empire. It's surprisingly cat-free.

Fight for the Future co-founder Holmes Wilson says the group has no plans to get involved in the primary—but he's hoping sooner or later Smith will get the message. "I guess he's still in DC until the weekend, but hopefully he'll come into work," Wilson says. "Hopefully he'll come into the San Antonio office sometime this weekend and get to see our billboard."

Corn on "Hardball": Romney's Campaign of Falsehoods Against President Obama

Thu, 24 May 2012 00:56:31 +0000

David Corn and Salon's Joan Walsh joined Chris Matthews on MSNBC's Hardball to discuss Mitt Romney's campaign of falsehoods against the President. Romney claims that President Obama has increased federal spending, raised taxes, and appeased Al Qaeda.

David Corn is Mother Jones' Washington bureau chief. For more of his stories, click here. He's also on Twitter.

Dem Poll Shows Walker and Barrett Tied in Recall

Andy Kroll — Wed, 23 May 2012 21:55:47 +0000

Wisconsin Democrats and union officials have a message for the recall doomsayers: Gov. Scott Walker and Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett are still locked in a dead heat.

After the last three public polls showed Walker with a 4 to 9 percentage point lead over Barrett, Democrats released an internal poll suggesting the race remains up for grabs. In a survey of 472 recall voters by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, Walker was ahead of Barrett by 3 points, 50-47. That's within the survey's 4-point margin of error. And in an encouraging sign for Democrats, Barrett leads Walker 50-44 among independent voters in Wisconsin.

Barrett backers say the new survey shows Walker hasn't locked up the June 5 recall election. "This race remains a dead heat, with Barrett solidifying and even building on his lead amongst independents, and Democrats' turnout operation in full gear as early voting and GOTV begin in earnest," Kelly Steele, the spokesman for the labor-backed outside political group We Are Wisconsin, wrote in a memo released to the press.

Steele also took aim at the recent flurry of polls, saying they were "flawed" because Republicans were overrepresented in their samples. The race will remain a "dead heat" until election day, Steele argued, and turnout will decide who triumphs on June 5. "On Election Day, it's that very turnout that will determine the outcome, and we remain confident in our trajectory and continue to execute our program as planned."

Read Steele's memo:

Dear SCOTUS: We ❤ Citizens United!

Gavin Aronsen — Wed, 23 May 2012 21:10:09 +0000

Since the US Supreme Court stayed a Citizens-United-defying ruling by Montana's Supreme Court in February, politicians and advocacy groups have lined up to take sides, filing amicus briefs urging the high court to let stand, reverse, or review the decision. The majority of the briefs, like the one submitted by Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), come from petitioners upset by the unlimited outside spending triggered by Citizens United.

Yet those calling on the Supreme Court to let the Montana ruling stand (including one group with a rather unorthodox argument) or use it as an opportunity to roll back Citizens United face an uphill battle. The court's conservative majority is likely to be more sympathetic to those friends of the court calling upon it to summarily reverse (i.e., overturn without hearing) the Montana ruling. Their main arguments:

Why mess with a good thing?
In his amicus brief, Senate Minority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) argues (PDF) that the Montana Supreme Court's decision to uphold the state's strict campaign finance laws should be summarily reversed since it contradicts Citizens United. "Nothing that has occurred since that ruling warrants its reconsideration," his brief reads. It goes further, noting that the majority of super-PAC contributions come from individuals, not corporations, and therefore concerns about the ruling are greatly exaggerated. The brief also approvingly cites a column in the New York Post by Reason's Jacob Sullum that claims that "independent groups, funded mainly by wealthy individuals, have increased competitiveness, which is usually considered good for democracy."

Corruption? Sorry, can't hear you.
The US Chamber of Commerce, which has spent upwards of $3 million against Democrats in this election cycle and has vowed not to disclose its donors, argues (PDF) that in light of Citizens United "it is settled law that independent expenditures do not create the appearance of corruption" because they aren't donated directly to candidates. As Lee Fang notes, it's pretty clear that evidence of actual corruption does exist, pointing to a multitude of evidence filed by a judge in McConnell v. FEC, the 2003 case that upheld the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance limits (which Citizens United partly reversed). Nevertheless, the Chamber says that even if such evidence of corruption should come to light, the Supreme Court should not use "empirical data" to reconsider its previous ruling.

Don't know much about history…
Citizens United, the group behind the case of the same name, has also weighed in. Montana Attorney General Steve Bullock argued that his state's unique history of political corruption, dating back to the political stranglehold held by the Anaconda Copper Mining Company in the late 1800s, was reason enough to disprove the Supreme Court's contention that independent expenditures "do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption." However, Citizens United says that the Montana ruling violates a 2009 Supreme Court decision, Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Holder, in which "this Court confirmed that history alone is an insufficient ground for sustaining a constitutionally suspect statute."

CU's brief also argues that Citizens United is not a "factbound" ruling and that any claims otherwise are disingenuous efforts to create an unconstitutional state-level exemption to free-speech rights. Meanwhile, Montana AG Bullock may have inadvertently strengthened his argument against Citizens United: After leaving his seat open to run for governor, an unprecedented amount of money has been poured into the Republican primary for attorney general, much of it from out-of-state PACs.

Texas Democratic Primary Just Got Real

Tim Murphy — Wed, 23 May 2012 16:23:26 +0000

I've got a piece up today on a Democratic House primary in El Paso, where former councilman Beto O'Rourke is challenging 16-year incumbent Silvestre Reyes. The kicker is that O'Rourke is an outspoken critic of the War on Drugs who's clashed with Reyes over federal drug policy; in a border district, the election amounts to a sort of referendum on the Drug War. The current polling of the race, such as it is, has the two deadlocked.

Why is a longtime incumbent facing an early retirement? University of Texas–El Paso professor Gregory Rocha suspected it was partly because Reyes has been kind of lethargic when it comes to defining himself and his opponent.

So right on cue, with election day just six days away, the Reyes campaign has gone what I think you could charitably call "scorched earth":

The El Paso Times has a handy fact-check of the charges: The DUI came when O'Rourke was 25 (he's 40 now) and has not seemed to hurt him in his previous races; the "attempted burglary" came when he was in college and according to the candidate consisted of him jumping a fence. The drunken spanking incident happened last June at an El Paso bar. In the grainy footage, O'Rourke is seen dancing, falling on his back, and then being spanked by a female companion. Although O'Rourke was undoubtedly spanked, it's not clear whether he was intoxicated.

In any event, I'm fairly certain this is the first-ever attack ad to feature the phrase "he was recently videoed publicly intoxicated being spanked."

American Airlines Boots Woman With Pro-Choice T-Shirt From Flight

Kate Sheppard — Wed, 23 May 2012 15:09:51 +0000

Can an airline boot a passenger for wearing a T-shirt it deems "offensive"? That's apparently what happened to one woman wearing a pro-choice T-shirt on an American Airlines flight out of Washington this week, RH Reality Check reports.

The woman boarded her first flight just fine, wearing a T-shirt that read, "If I wanted the government in my womb, I'd fuck a senator." (The shirt was made in response to a sign that an Oklahoma lawmaker made earlier this year to protest a proposed law granting rights to fertilized eggs.) But as the woman was about to deboard to switch to her next flight, a flight attendant approached her and told her that she needed to talk to the captain because her T-shirt was "offensive." The woman, identified only by the initial "O," described the incident to RH Reality Check:

When I was leaving the plane the captain stepped off with me and told me I should not have been allowed to board the plane in DC and needed to change before boarding my next flight. This conversation led to me missing my connecting flight. I assumed that because I was held up by the captain, they would have called ahead to let the connecting flight know I was in route. Well, upon my hastened arrival at the gate of the connecting flight, it was discovered that they did indeed call ahead but not to hold the flight, only to tell them I needed to change my shirt. I was given a seat on the next flight and told to change shirts.

Her bags were checked through to her final destination, so she couldn't change shirts. She said she ended up covering it up with a shawl, and was able to get home on the later flight.

American Airlines media relations representative Tim Smith told Mother Jones via email that it was the language on the shirt, not the message, that prompted the response. "Let me strongly emphasize that the only reason she was asked to cover up her T-shirt was the appearance of the 'F-word' on the T-shirt," he wrote. He pointed to a line in the airline's "Conditions of Carriage" that notes that the airline can refuse to transport a passenger or can remove them from a flight at any point if they "Are clothed in a manner that would cause discomfort or offense to other passengers."

"[O]ur crew has the final say on any type of garment that could make others uncomfortable," wrote Smith. "Among such issues, we routinely do not allow any garment of any type to display that word." In a follow-up email, he again stated that it was not the pro-choice message that prompted the incident, but the f-bomb.

The incident certainly raises questions about what an airline can deem offensive. Her shirt didn't present a security threat, nor would it make anyone physically uncomfortable. They just didn't like the word choice. I can think of a lot of T-shirts that make me uncomfortable (like this one or these). So what are the limits to what an airline can deem offensive?

Dem to Liberal Donors: Wake the F#!$ Up!

Andy Kroll — Wed, 23 May 2012 14:52:06 +0000

The politico in charge of helping Democrats keep control of the US Senate has a message for left-leaning donors: Wake up and open those checkbooks!

In an interview with the Huffington Post, Guy Cecil, executive director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, put Democrats' odds at even to retain the control of the Senate in this year's elections. But Cecil worries about the gap in spending between Democratic and Republican outside spending groups, such as the US Chamber of Commerce and American Crossroads, the independent political juggernaut started by GOP gurus Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie.

"Money" is what keeps Cecil up at night, he said. "Our allies need to wake up," he added. "Our allies need to understand that the majority in the Senate is in danger and that everything from jobs and the economy and women's health and Supreme Court justices, Wall Street reform—all the things that they have worked so hard for—will be for naught if we lose the Senate."

Here's more from HuffPost:

While Democratic Senate candidates have about $50 million more in the bank overall than their Republican counterparts, they have been outspent by a factor of nearly three to one—$29.1 million to $9.3 million—in the advertising wars, largely thanks to the outside groups and super PACs willing to spend unlimited amounts of money.

According to data provided by a Democratic source familiar with ad buys, the biggest spender on Senate races has been the US Chamber of Commerce, which has already pumped in more than $11 million for "issue" ads that benefit the GOP. After that come the Karl Rove-hatched groups American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS, with at least $7 million. The group 60 Plus, billed as a conservative alternative to the AARP, has spent more than $4 million.

The biggest spender on the Democratic side, meanwhile, has been the League of Conservation Voters, shelling out some $2.7 million, according to the source. The still-growing Majority PAC, a super-PAC formed by Democratic operatives to sway Senate races, has been good for $1.7 million.

"They need to—and we all need to—step up and make sure that our candidates have the resources they need, that we can push back on these super-PACs, that we can make sure our side of the story is heard," Cecil said. "I am confident that if we can close the gap financially, we will hold the Senate. But it's also a big if."

In related news, Tom Donohue, the US Chamber of Commerce's president and CEO, told members of his organization that the group plans to get involved in as many as a dozen Senate races this year. Donohue wouldn't say exactly how much the Chamber would spend in the 2012 cycle—news reports have put it as high as $50 million—but, as Reuters reported, Donohue promised "it'll be a lot of money."

Tuesday's Winners: Rand Paul, 21-Year-Old Millionaires

Tim Murphy — Wed, 23 May 2012 14:00:31 +0000

As it became obvious on Tuesday evening that Thomas Massie was going to win the GOP primary in Kentucky's 4th congressional district, Trey Grayson hopped on Twitter to explain just why this story sounded so familiar: "Have to admit that I chuckled when someone called Massie's performance so far tonight a #Randslide. Pretty apt description. I should know!"

He should. Two years ago, the only thing standing between Grayson, the GOP's handpicked replacement for retiring Sen. Jim Bunning, and the Republican Senate nomination was a Bowling Green optometrist with no political experience. Grayson lost to Rand Paul by twenty points. On Tuesday, in the 4th district, it happened again. State Sen. Alecia Webb-Edgington had the support of retiring Rep. Geoff Davis and Bunning, who held the seat previously. County executive Thomas Massie, with Rand Paul's backing, won by 16 points. Randslide indeed.

(More evidence of Paul's coattails: Former spokesman Chris Hightower, last seen resigning from Paul's senate campaign after being outed as a Satanic death-metal drummer, won the GOP primary for a seat in the Kentucky state house on Tuesday.)

Massie had help, though. Liberty for All, a Texas-based super-PAC founded by John Ramsey, a 21-year-old Ron Paul-loving college kid (you can read my profile of Ramsey here) paid for a $550,000 advertising barrage over the final 10 days of the campaign. Funded, at least for now, with money Ramsey inherited from his late grandfather, Liberty for All wants to provide a party framework for "Freedom candidates"—that is, provide the kind of institutional support and training for Paul-ish candidates that establishment pols already get from party organs. Preston Bates, the group's executive director, estimated that they'd end up spending $700,000 on the Massie race if you factor in direct mail and man hours. That's a lot, especially when you consider that Webb-Edgington, the second-place finisher, had raised just $200,000 by May 2.

Whether or not Ramsey, Bates, et al. can take their project to scale remains to be seen, but the race offers a glimpse of the future landscape of campaign finance. As Grayson, now director of the Harvard Institute of Politics, put it: "Expect to see more Super PACs getting involved in Congressional & other 'smaller' races where six figure donations can tilt an election."

If presidential candidates can each have their own corresponding billionaires, why wouldn't House candidates have their own patrons too?

The Catholic Legal Assault on the Contraception Mandate

Stephanie Mencimer — Tue, 22 May 2012 20:16:34 +0000

On Monday, 40 Catholic agencies and institutions across the country launched a veritable legal holy war against the Obama administration, filing coordinated lawsuits against the Department of Health and Human Services over the proposed contraception mandate in the new health care reform law. The effort is being spearheaded by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), which has been clashing with the Obama administration for months over the mandate and other White House decisions that the bishops view as anti-Catholic.

The church certainly brings a lot of money and high-powered legal fire to the fight—the lawsuits were filed by the Jones Day law firm, where Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia once worked. But the Catholics' legal arguments may not be terribly persuasive, in large part because it's hard for them to get around the fact that they are asking for the right to impose their religious beliefs on a lot of people who don't follow them.

Civil libertarians think the administration is on very solid footing in defending the mandate. "This lawsuit is outrageous," said Rev. Barry Lynn, the executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said in a statement to Mother Jones. Under the current proposal, church-related institutions don't have to pay for birth control services. Apparently that isn't enough. The bishops want US government health care policy to reflect Catholic teachings, and they're looking to the courts to get what they want. The Obama administration should stand firm. Americans should not be denied birth control services just because one aggressive religious group is opposed to it."

This is the second time in recent months that Catholic institutions have been in court defending their right to deny people of all stripes access to contraception. The ACLU's Reproductive Freedom Project recently won its lawsuit against HHS over a federal grant through which USCCB provided services to human trafficking victims. The bishops had refused to allow subcontractors to use the federal money to refer women for reproductive health services. In 2009, the ACLU filed suit arguing that under the contract the USCCB (and by extension, the federal government) was unconstitutionally foisting Catholic religious beliefs on the larger public. (The Obama administration last year refused to renew the contract, prompting even more outrage from USCCB, which accused the administration of operating an "ABC policy," or "Anyone But Catholics.")

The arguments over the anti-trafficking contract echo the ones the Catholic agencies are currently making in their legal campaign against the contraception mandate. Jennifer Dalven, director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project, says that the Catholic groups are likely to lose their lawsuits over the contraception mandate as well. She explains:

The original rule was perfectly constitutional. In fact, more than half the states already require insurance plans to include contraception, several with very narrow exceptions and some with no exception at all. Many of these laws were passed with broad, bi-partisan support. And now, with the modifications proposed by the Administration, any lingering concerns about the rule's constitutionality should be put to rest. Institutions with religious objections won't be required to contribute to birth control coverage for their employees. And in fact, the high courts in California and New York have rejected claims that requiring birth control coverage violates the First Amendment.

Real religious freedom gives everyone the right to make personal decisions, including whether and when to use birth control, based on our beliefs. It doesn't give one group the right to impose its beliefs on others, or to use religion as an excuse to discriminate by denying employees access to vital services. The fight they are waging isn't about religious liberty at all, but about whether a woman should have insurance coverage for birth control. When you stop and think about it, it's incredible that this is an issue in 2012.

Congress Talk Pretty One Day

Asawin Suebsaeng — Tue, 22 May 2012 17:24:40 +0000

A recent study by the Sunlight Foundation found that Congress is a lot like Benjamin Button. But instead of reverse-aging, members of Congress are regressing in their ability to form complex sentences.

According to the analysis, members of the House and Senate currently speak at roughly a 10th grade level—almost a full grade lower than in 2005. Republicans come in at a 10.4 grade level average, while Democrats perform slightly better at a 10.8. (The study was based on algorithmic analysis—similar to methods used to chart Congressional buzzwords—of floor speeches delivered through April 25, 2012.)

Politico has a rundown:

The study also revealed that only 10 members of Congress have used at least 20 of Kaplan's 100 most common SAT words so far in the current session of Congress, while just 92 members have used at least 10 of those words...[T]he U.S. Constitution is written at a 17.8 grade level, the Federalist Papers at a 17.1 level, and the Declaration of Independence at a 15.1 level (an analysis by the University of Minnesota showed that President Barack Obama's State of the Union this year had an 8th grade comprehension level – the third lowest score of any SOTU address since 1934).

Here's are a couple of charts from the study:

Sunlight Foundation

On its surface, this will probably read like yet another cue to bash the stupidity of our much-derided Congress. But determining the substance or effectiveness of something based on its "grade level" isn't an exact science. People might want to keep this fact in mind:

All journos mocking Congress for speaking at a 10th grade level shud remember that newspaper writers aim for 8th grade. (6th is better)
— Jim Tankersley (@jimtankersley) May 21, 2012

You could plausibly argue that our nation's rhetoric has been somewhat dumbed down over the past few years. But great politicians have always tried to speak in populist terms. It shouldn't shock anyone to learn that elected officials don't often channel Aaron Sorkin. If you want to mock the 112th Congress, you run the risk of looking silly if you chuckle at politicians' word choices or the length of their speeches.

Instead, simply highlight their ideas.

Romney Education Adviser and His Dropout Scandal

David Corn — Tue, 22 May 2012 16:26:14 +0000

With President Barack Obama on a tear in recent weeks to keep interest rates on college loans low—an issue that plays well with young voters—Mitt Romney, the presumptive GOP nominee, on Tuesday unveiled his Education Policy Advisory Group. It features at least ten education experts who served during the George W. Bush administration, most notably Rod Paige, who was education secretary during Bush's first term. The short bio of Paige released by the Romney campaign states that he once was superintendent of Houston's schools. But it fails to mention that Paige, once he was in Bush's cabinet, became mired in an ugly scandal, when the news broke that the Houston school system, the seventh largest in the nation, had falsified its dropout stats during Paige's tenure.

As the Los Angeles Times put it:

A series of internal audits and external investigations that followed found that nearly all of the schools examined in Houston, with the nation's seventh-largest school district and where U.S. Education Secretary Rod Paige had been superintendent, were vastly underreporting dropouts.

A New York Times editorial explained why this was particularly embarrassing for Bush and Paige:

As a presidential candidate and Texas governor, George Bush boasted that his state's school accountability system would be a model for the nation. A focus on basic skills and frequent testing had turned around an underperforming set of school systems in a state with a large poor, nonwhite population. In particular, he said, Houston was leading the way. When he was elected president, Mr. Bush selected Rod Paige, the Houston superintendent, as his education secretary.

It turns out the Houston schools have not lived up to their billing. Their amazingly low high school dropout rate was literally unbelievable—the educational equivalent of Enron's accounting results. The school district has found that more than half of the 5,500 students who left in the 2000-1 school year should have been declared dropouts but were not.

Dr. Paige, who has declined to comment on the Houston scandal, can remain silent no longer. He was brought to Washington to provide national educational leadership. With Houston facing a crisis of fiddled data, he owes it to the country to share his thoughts on how this happened and what it means.

Several years later, when 60 Minutes was reporting on the Houston dropout scandal, Paige still wouldn't explain his role:

60 Minutes also tried to talk to Paige himself, but he declined. His spokesman said the dropout controversy broke after Paige left Houston to become education secretary....

Paige's spokesman suggested that 60 Minutes talk to Jay Greene, a leading expert on dropouts at the Manhattan Institute. Greene supports the kind of accountability reforms Paige enacted in Houston.

But this is what Greene said when asked what he thought about Houston's "official" dropout rates: "I find that very hard to believe. It is almost certainly not true. I think it's simply implausible. I think a reasonable guess is that almost half of Houston's students do not graduate from high school."

If Paige has ever publicly spoken candidly about what happened on his watch in Houston, I couldn't find it. Yet Romney has tapped him as a "special adviser" on education (a move that didn't happen during the GOP primaries, when Romney had to appeal to a base that included conservative voters skeptical of the Bush adminstration's No Child Left Behind legislation, which Paige helped develop). By selecting this former Bush official, Romney once again is rushing back to the future—and embracing a fellow who called for accountability for schools but ducked accountability for himself.

Iowa Republican Party Goes Birther

Tim Murphy — Tue, 22 May 2012 13:42:31 +0000

As the old saying goes, history repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as the Republican Party of Iowa.

Via Felicia Sonmez, it looks like the Iowa GOP has gone birther. On Monday, Don Racheter, chairman of the Iowa GOP's 2012 platform committee, told Radio Iowa's O. Kay Henderson about the state party's new platform. Racheter said the document, which is still being drafted, was deliberately written to call into question President Barack Obama's eligibility for office by including a plank mandating that the commander-in-chief be a "natural born citizen":

There are many Republicans who feel that Barack Obama is not a 'natural born citizen' because his father was not an American when he was born and, therefore, feel that according to the Constitution he’s not qualified to be president, should not have been allowed to be elected by the Electoral College or even nominated by the Democratic Party in 2008, so this is an election year. It's a shot at him.

This comes just one week after Arizona Secretary of State—and Mitt Romney Arizona campaign co-chair—Ken Bennett announced that he might try to keep Obama off the ballot in November unless he can see an original copy of the President's birth certificate. Just when you think birtherism might fade away, it pops up, Jamie Moyer-style, with a surgically reconstructed elbow and a seemingly unending trove of heretofore-undisclosed evidence.

The rest of the Iowa GOP's platform is itself a somewhat spectacular document. The platform says much about the tone and tenor of the conservative grassroots five-and-a-half months out from election day. It advocates nullification of federal laws, the abolition of 10 cabinet-level departments (plus the TSA, FDA, ATF, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac), an end to birthright citizenship, and "the implementation of Lean Six Sigma" at all levels of government. It calls for the rejection of "UN Treaty on the Rights of the Child" (which social conservatives fear will curtail the perfectly justified practice of spanking), aims for the term "assault weapon" to be redefined as something other than a semi-automatic weapon, and asserts that "all individuals have the freedom to choose the quality of air in their home." The "so-called 'NAFTA Superhighway'"—which doesn't exist—should be scuttled. There are 14 different planks pertaining to the United Nations and the North American Union, most notably the pro-sustainability Agenda 21 pact, which the Iowa GOP considers "diabolical."

Update: The Iowa Democratic Party, which is apparently totally fine with having United Nations mullahs regulate your household air quality, wants Mitt Romney to condemn the platform:

This particular Republican conspiracy theory has been debunked time and time again and will have no bearing on the election, but it does present an opportunity for Mitt Romney to finally rise to the occasion and denounce the extreme voices in his party.

Corn on Hardball: What Was Cory Booker Thinking?

Tue, 22 May 2012 10:00:00 +0000

David Corn joined Chris Matthews on MSNBC's Hardball to discuss Cory Booker's recent comments criticizing the Obama campaign's attacks on Mitt Romney's record at Bain Capital.

David Corn is Mother Jones' Washington bureau chief. For more of his stories, click here. He's also on Twitter.

We're Still at War: Photo of the Day for May 21, 2012

Mon, 21 May 2012 14:30:14 +0000

Children gather around as members of Provincial Reconstruction Team Farah pull security during a mission in Farah City, Farah province, Afghanistan, on May 12, 2012. PRT members met with locals to gather information and opinions about the living conditions in Farah City. Photo by the US Army.

Michele Bachmann Finally Picks Up a Delegate

Tim Murphy — Mon, 21 May 2012 14:03:27 +0000

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) is no longer spending money on states that haven't yet held their nominating contests. He doesn't have the money, and he doesn't much see the point. But in places like Minnesota, where the state Republican convention is just now finishing up the delegate-selection process it started in March, Paul and his team have been hard at work. And their efforts are paying off. After his supporters effectively took control of the Nevada GOP earlier this month, he cleaned up again last weekend in the Land of Milk and Pawlenty:

"This is one of the greatest states that I have witnessed, where I have seen the transition, where the enthusiasm's there," the grinning Texas congressman told hundreds of exuberant activists Saturday at the state party's convention in St. Cloud, where he won 12 of 13 open delegate spots to the GOP national convention in Tampa, Fla., in August...

Unlike four years ago, when Paul was forced to speak from the party's convention lawn because he would not pledge allegiance to the eventual presidential nominee, he got an open-armed embrace from the party this year. He was welcomed to the delegates' stage, held a fundraiser for the party and got a hero's welcome.

How successful was the Paul takeover? Out of courtesy, his supporters even managed to secure a delegate for Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, who dropped out of the race after the first nominating contest in Iowa.

Paul still isn't going to win the nomination, and he's indicated that he doesn't intend to raise hell at the GOP convention in Tampa. But the Minnesota victory reflects to some extent the political maturation of his followers. The knock on Paul disciples in 2008, as outlined in Brian Doherty's new Paul bio, was that they lacked discipline, preferring to make signs and fan videos rather than do the hard work of targeted voter outreach; this time around they've taken a more conventional approach, and they have real gains to show for it—in the form of viable congressional candidates like Thomas Massie in Kentucky and state and county party committees that are now controlled by Paul loyalists.