Ultra-Right Heartland Institute Compares Belief in Global Warming to Mass Murder

The ultra conservative Heartland Institute is holding its 7^th annual anti-scientific “international conference on climate change” in Chicago on May 21^st to the 23^rd. (See http://heartland.org/events/seventh-international-conference-climate-change) To draw attention to the conference, the well-funded Heartland started an ad campaign comparing people who believe in global warming to murderers.

(Below is an New York Times article on their ad campaign.)

May 4, 2012 NYTimes

Heartland Pulls Billboard on Global Warming

By RACHEL NUWER

Heartland Institute A billboard campaign: Ted Kaczynski, whose homemade

bombs killed 3 people and wounded 23.

Drivers moving along Chicago’s inbound Eisenhower Expressway on Friday may have been surprised to see Ted Kaczynski, the so-called Unabomber, staring at them from a massive billboard. “I still believe in global warming. Do you?” the billboard read in large maroon letters. Just below was the Web address www.heartland.org.

Hours later, the digital billboard was gone. It seems that the ad campaign, sponsored by the conservative Heartland Institute, had bombed.

“We know that our billboard angered and disappointed many of Heartland’s friends and supporters, but we hope they understand what we were trying to do with this experiment,” the institute said late Friday afternoon said in a statement. “We do not apologize for running the ad, and we will continue to experiment with ways to communicate the ‘realist’ message on the climate.”

In opening the campaign, Heartland had said that Mr. Kaczynski would not be the only persona gazing down on Chicago’s commuters. Among his brethren would be Charles Manson, Fidel Castro, Osama bin Laden and James J. Lee, the institute said.

The Heartland Institute, a libertarian research center based in Chicago, describes its chief mission as promoting free-market solutions to social and economic problems. Recently, though, the institute has drawn considerably more news media attention for its efforts to advance skepticism about climate change.

The institute chose to feature “some of the world’s most notorious killers” on the billboards “because what these murderers and madmen have said differs very little from what spokespersons for the United Nations, journalists for the ‘mainstream’ media and liberal politicians say about global warming,” Heartland said at its Web site.

The institute’s site acknowledged that “not all global warming alarmists are murderers and tyrants.”

In announcing that it was suspending the campaign, Heartland said that “this provocative billboard was always intended to be an experiment.”

“And after just 24 hours the results are in: It got people’s attention,” it said.

The billboard was “an attempt to turn the tables on the climate alarmists by using their own tactics but with the opposite message,” it said.

At its Web site, the Heartland Institute is directing readers to a quiz in which they can guess whether various quotations are from Mr. Kaczynski’s notorious Unabomber manifesto or rather from Al Gore’s book “Earth in the Balance.” Full disclosure: this reporter, age 26, scored 33 percent.

The billboard campaign was rolled out in advance of the Heartland Institute’s seventh International Conference on Climate Change, which opens on May 21 in Chicago.

Shut ALEC Down Now!

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) has lobbied to crush voting rights for potentially millions of people. This has been pushed back because of the great work done by ColorOfChange and other progressive groups.

A number of large corporations have been influenced to pull back from endorsing ALEC. Now ALEC says it is pulling back from voting rights lobbying, along with pulling back from lobbying for “Stand Your Ground” legislation and the “Castle Doctrine.” They are pulling back now that the damage has been done in well over 30 states that have enacted these violent and ultra – right policies.

Following is a blog that spells out how dangerous ALEC continues to be. Our efforts must be to oppose ALEC at every step whether concerning democratic rights or economic rights.

Shut ALEC down now. An immediate demand must be to put an end to the nonprofit “charity” tax status enjoyed by ALEC.

CMD: Hang onto that Paycheck! ALEC “Sharpens Focus on Jobs”

http://www.prwatch.org/news/2012/04/11468/hang-paycheck-alec-sharpens-focus-jobs

by Mary Bottari — April 19, 2012

This week the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) announced that it would disband its controversial “Public Safety and Elections Task Force” to “Sharpen its Focus on Jobs, Free Markets and Growth.” The disbanding of the source of a few of its more extreme proposals on voter ID, “Stand Your Ground/Shoot to Kill,” and AZ SB1070 will do little to clean up ALEC’s reputation. Each of ALEC’s nine task forces is a little shop of horrors of legislative proposals that only Milton Friedman could love.

Focus on jobs, you say? The Center for Media and Democracy’s archive of over 800 ALEC “model bills” has exposed a jobs agenda that is nothing less than a ruthless race to the bottom in wages and working conditions.

ALEC’s Race to the Bottom in Wages for American Workers

The “Living Wage Mandate Preemption Act” would repeal and then ban local “living wage” ordinances like the ones in some 140 cities that provide a higher minimum for city workers/contractors — enough to maintain a safe, decent standard of living in a community. Similarly, the ALEC “Starting (Minimum) Wage Repeal Act” would preempt the ability of localities to pay a minimum wage higher than the federal level. Some 22 states allow starting wages, but ALEC objects to the policy as an “unfunded mandate.”

The ALEC “Prevailing Wage Repeal Act” would get rid of all state prevailing wage laws that give workers engaged in public works contracts a regional, average salary in an attempt to prevent contractors from entering into a race to the bottom in worker wages to win contract bids.

Not satisfied by pulling down workers’ wages in every imaginable domestic scenario, ALEC also supports a radical free trade agenda that pits U.S. workers against foreign workers making a fraction of their wage and facilitates the off-shoring of U.S. jobs. From China Free Trade in 2000 to Korea Free Trade today, ALEC has supported shipping jobs overseas.

Where is the bottom in ALEC’s race to the bottom? Why, prison labor of course. ALEC promotes the privatization of prisons and prison industries that do not have to abide by minimum wage rules.

Perhaps in an oversight, the ALEC archive does not contain bills rolling back child labor laws.

Benefits and Working Conditions

There’s more. ALEC wants to deter injured employees from making worker’s compensation claims by, for example, giving employers wider access to workers’ medical records. ALEC wants to privatize public pension plans by transferring the management of pension funds to for-profit Wall Street firms. What could go wrong?

And where to begin on the health care agenda? When Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker signed a law preempting a modest ordinance granting Milwaukee’s restaurant workers a few paid sick days a year, a largely female work force earning poverty wages, ALEC eagerly took up the issue in its “Labor and Business Regulation Subcommittee” at the ALEC 2011 meeting in New Orleans. The committee has been co-chaired by YUM! Brands, owners of KFC, Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, and other fast food chains.

Yum, who wants flu with their burger or taco? Today, YUM Brands was the 12th company to announce that it was pulling out of ALEC.

Crushing Unions

ALEC has a sweeping anti-union agenda that would cripple labor’s ability to serve as an effective counterweight to corporate CEOs. Let’s start with decades of support for “Right to Work” and “Paycheck Protection” legislation, and other measures to disempower and defund unions.

On collective bargaining, ALEC’s “Public Employee Freedom Act” declares that “an employee should be able to contract on their own terms” and “mandatory collective bargaining laws violate this freedom.” This ALEC bill and the “Public Employer Payroll Deduction Policy Act” prohibit automatic payroll deductions for union dues, a key aspect of Walker’s collective bargaining bill struck down by a federal court judge.

These bills are designed to financially cripple the most significant organized voice for working families. The co-chair of ALEC’s “Commerce, Insurance and Economic Development Task Force” currently is State Farm Insurance. Other committee members include Macquarie Capital and Cintra USA. These foreign firms have rushed to purchase bridges, toll roads, and other public assets of financially stressed state and local governments so they can provide formerly public services on a for-profit basis. They have a lot to gain from ALEC’s expansive agenda to privatize public services.

Apparently, ALEC and the corporations funding ALEC’s operations like State Farm, Johnson and Johnson, and AT&T would like to turn back the clock to those good old days when there were no unions and no minimum wage. They must not be allowed to succeed.

*****************************
The full list of ALEC anti-worker and anti-consumer bills can be accessed here.

Stop the War on Mothers by Ellen Bravo

(View Ellen Bravo taking a stand against the “big boys” of the right-wing on the Melissa Harris-Perry show on MSNBC:

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/melissa-harris-perry/46419672#47049605 )

By Ellen Bravo

I love the image of conservatives hiding behind the flag of motherhood to protect themselves against charges of gender insensitivity. It’s like kids who move the couch to cover up a stain and hope no one will notice.

By all means, let’s talk about the importance of motherhood.

We can start with the right to stay home after giving birth. Rush Limbaugh recently ranted that women have much more flexibility at work than men.

Unlike Rush, I like to begin with the facts.

The United States is one of only four countries in the world that doesn’t ensure new mothers can afford to stay home even for the briefest of times after they have a baby. Not surprisingly, millions of American mothers who’ve given birth go back to work before the six weeks needed just for healing. The majority of new mothers return before 12 weeks.

Why? For many, because they’ll lose their job otherwise. We have two laws protecting new mothers. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act says an employer can’t fire someone for being pregnant but doesn’t have to hold her job for her while she recovers from birth.

Really.

The other, the Family and Medical Leave Act, does protect the jobs of mothers and fathers who take leave to care for a newborn– but it excludes half the workforce because they work for a company with fewer than 50 employees, haven’t been on the job long enough or work part time.

And did I mention the leave is unpaid?

In fact, nearly half of employed mothers receive no pay whatsoever for the time they’re out on maternity leave. Of those who do draw some pay, most are using time they’ve accrued, like vacation.

As anyone with a newborn knows, having a baby is a great joy, but it is definitely not a vacation.

And what about when a child falls ill? More than two-fifths of all workers, three-quarters of low-wage workers, don’t have a single paid sick day. Nearly half of those who do can’t use the time to care for a sick child.

In other words, when the school calls and says your child just threw up and you must come pick him up, women all over the country risk losing a day’s pay — or worse, their job — for being a good mom. Many of those women work for multi-billion dollar restaurant or nursing home chains, home health care agencies or child care centers.

Because when women do for a living the work that mothers do in the home – feeding people, taking care of the sick or the elderly or the very young – they’re usually paid very little and provided few if any benefits.

Ask those guardians of motherhood why the workers who care for our young children earn less than those who care for our cars or our pets; and why domestic workers and home health care workers are excluded from protection of most labor laws.

Conservatives oppose every policy to correct these injustices – family leave, paid sick days, expanding labor law protection, equal pay laws.

If you really want to know how conservatives feel about motherhood, take a look at what they say when women who happen to be poor want to stay home to take care of their kids. Right-wing pundits and politicians blast these mothers as lazy and irresponsible people who refuse to work and should be forced to do so, no matter what job, what pay, what shift.

“We should ask that all adults participate in work activities to their fullest ability,” Governor Romney has said.

And by “work,” he doesn’t mean feeding or cuddling or playing with their young ones.

I’m all for honoring mothers. Let’s start by making sure they’re not punished for doing that job well, and that the fathers of those children are allowed to share in the joy, and work, of caring for them.

 

 

NRA and ALEC Behind “Stand Your Ground” Law

NRA expands its role from fight for gun rights to conservative causes

By Libby Lewis, CNN Fri April 6, 2012

In late March, protesters gather at the Georgia State Capitol to protest the death of Florida teen Trayvon Martin.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• American Legislative Executive Council getting attention for pushing conservative legislation
• Group was behind the spread of “stand your ground” laws
• This week, Coca-Cola and Kraft say they are pulling corporate memberships from group
• The group has ties to the NRA, which has extended its reach beyond gun rights advocacy

Washington (CNN) — This week, Coca-Cola and Kraft announced they are pulling their corporate memberships from a conservative group that was behind the spread of “stand your ground” laws like the one highlighted in Florida by the Trayvon Martin case.

The American Legislative Executive Council, also known as ALEC, is getting attention lately for its behind the scenes work pushing conservative legislation in the states.

The group has gotten even more attention since a neighborhood watch volunteer shot and killed unarmed teenager Martin last month.

The man who shot Martin, George Zimmerman, said he acted in self-defense. Police haven’t charged him and legal experts say Florida’s “stand your ground” law may shield Zimmerman from prosecution.

The National Rifle Association worked with ALEC to spread similar laws that are on the books in at least 25 states.

Those laws grow directly out of the Second Amendment ethos the NRA has championed: “the ethos of individualism, of having a gun, of individuals taking the initiative,” said Robert Spitzer, a political scientist at the State University of New York at Cortland and at Cornell University who has studied and written about the NRA for decades.

Opinion: When soda pop and politics don’t mix

Less well known is that the NRA has also helped ALEC spread other conservative laws that have nothing to do with gun rights.

ALEC drafts and shares model bills with state legislators to promote corporation-friendly and conservative social policy.

A watchdog group called the Center for Media and Democracy first documented the NRA’s role in these bills with ALEC.

An NRA lobbyist, Tara Mica, helped shepherd a model bill that requires voters to show a photo ID at the polls. Many conservatives have pushed voter ID laws to prevent election fraud. Many liberals say these laws inhibit voting by minorities.

Mica also helped preside over ALEC’s passage of the model bill that became the basis of Arizona’s immigration law. That’s the law that requires police to arrest anyone who cannot prove when asked that they entered the United States legally.

The NRA and Mica wouldn’t talk with CNN, so it’s not known whether Mica consulted with other NRA officials about the bills on voter ID and immigration.

ALEC also declined to answer questions.

Lisa Graves with the Center for Media and Democracy said the way ALEC works, “We know a bill cannot be approved as a model bill if the private sector members, like the NRA or Walmart, don’t want it to become a model bill.”

Josh Horwitz heads an advocacy group called the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. He said the NRA’s role with ALEC cements his view that the NRA is really a base for the conservative movement.

“People think the NRA is just a gun group. It’s really not.” Horwitz said.

Horwitz’s group has created a cheeky website, “Meet the NRA.org.” It lists the NRA’s board of directors, and it has a rolling information bar that features some of their more colorful statements.

The NRA’s board includes Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, and David Keene, former chairman of the American Conservative Union. The board also includes Robert Brown, creator of Soldier of Fortune magazine, and rock guitarist Ted Nugent.

Spitzer said the NRA has gotten involved in some other non-gun issues.

For instance, he said, the NRA fought hard against campaign finance reform in the days of McCain-Feingold. “They were taking a very much free-enterprise, government-hands-off-the-campaign-process (approach),” he said.

But Spitzer said the NRA will always be primarily about guns and what they stand for in the individualist American mythology.

He said the NRA’s work is cut out for it, because gun ownership is on the decline in America.

Bradley and Walton Foundation Fund a Study of Milwaukee Vouchers

Bog Posting on Public education: this is What Democracy Looks Like

By Bob Peterson February 27, 2012

New Voucher Study Shows Need for Public Accountability and Transparency

A new report on the nation’s largest voucher program demonstrates why Milwaukee voucher schools should adhere to the accountability and transparency laws followed by the public schools.

The 225-page report was a longitudinal study that compared samples of voucher and public school students using “value-added” achievement data in reading and math. The authors – many of whom have made a career out of researching voucher and charter schools – concluded “in some grades” students who attended voucher schools from 2006 to 2010 “exhibited greater growth in reading achievement than a group of matched Milwaukee Public Schools students.” The differences in math were not statistically significant.

While voucher proponents hailed the study, a closer look at report shows inconsistencies and raises many questions.

For example, a major conclusion [page 4, Report 36] asserts “enrolling in a private high school through MPCP [Milwaukee Parental Choice Program] increased the likelihood of a student graduating from high school, enrolling in a four-year college… by 4-7 percentage points.”

But on page 16, Report 30, the report states, “that the majority of students (approximately 75%) who were enrolled in 9th grade in MPCP were not enrolled there by the time they reached 12th grade. … there is evidence that the students who leave MPCP for public schools are among the lowest performing private school students.”

In other words, three-quarters of voucher 9^th graders have left by 12^th grade, and the students who remain started out as higher achievers.

If we believe in educating all children, that shouldn’t be a source of pride. It also raises unexplored questions. Why do so many of the more-difficult-to-educate high schoolers leave the voucher schools? Are they “counseled out?” Expelled? Allowed to fall through the cracks? Is this a new form of creaming?

Given such internal inconsistencies in the report, it’s difficult to have confidence in the report’s conclusions.

The report was written by the School Choice Demonstration Project of the Department of Education Reform at the University of Arkansas. The authors didn’t provide an advance copy of the report to Wisconsin’s State Superintendent of Schools Tony Evers who is legally in charge of monitoring the program. As a result, the most widely read news story on the study that appeared on Monday in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel didn’t quote him.

A few interesting facts came out in the reports.

• More than a third of the voucher students (36 percent) who were in the original student cohorts were missing and unable to be located by the fourth year of the study — literally, the researchers don’t know where they are because they are neither in a voucher school nor MPS. They may be in a charter school; they have moved out of the city. This calls into question any ability to make reliable conclusions.

• Only 68% of the teachers in the voucher schools have teaching licenses compared to 94% in the public schools.

• Based on the 2010-2011 WKCE test scores, the achievement gap between blacks and whites were significantly higher in the voucher schools than in MPS. (The report looked at  the gap in reading and math in both 4^th and 8^th grade.)

One final note. None of the report’s data is disaggregated by school. In other words, there are some good voucher schools and some lousy voucher schools — but the report’s authors don’t let the public know which are which.  The Milwaukee Public Schools, in contrast, releases data on a school-by-school basis, from test scores to mobility rates to attendance to special ed percentages.

The Arkansas report was funded by six foundations. Two of the most prominent are the Bradley Foundation and the Walton Family Foundation, well-known conservative foundations that believe in a universal voucher system as an alternative to public schools.

It was the fourth and final year of the longitudinal study. Efforts to increase voucher school accountability were blocked earlier this month when the Republican-dominated Legislature removed the voucher schools from a proposed statewide reporting system.

Republican Party, Hispanics for School Choice and Scott Jensen

Scott Jensen and Hispanics for School Choice-Both are part of an interlocking network of pro-voucher organizations aligned with the Republican Party.

By Barbara Miner, Feb. 18, 2012

News reports this week exposed the close working — and legally questionable — relationship between Republican legislators, lobbyist Scott Jensen and the pro-voucher group Hispanics for School Choice.

Those involved in the controversy have a long-standing working relationship that is part of a strategic alliance between right-wing billionaires; school vouchers supporters, and Republican Party operatives.

Consider this announcement on the website of “The Hispanic Conservative” more than a year ago, on Jan. 14, 2011:

Last week, Executive Board members of Hispanics for School Choice created somewhat of a buzz as they descended upon the State Capitol to circulate their legislative agenda.  Associates from the American Federation of Children and School Choice Wisconsin accompanied HFSC in separate meetings with Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald, Assembly Speaker Jeff Fitzgerald, Education Committee Chair Steve Kestell, and Secretary of the Department of Administration Mike Huebsch to discuss a timetable of moving the School Choice program forward.

HFSC Board Members were also given exclusive entry to a closed caucus in the Grand Army of the Republic Hearing Room before Assembly Republicans  – an access rarely granted to non-profit organizations of any sort for any reason.  Before the 60-member caucus, Board Members of HFSC were introduced communicating the idea that HFSC aimed to be more of a resource to legislators than a needy lobbyist.[i]

Pro-voucher groups are some of the strongest and best-funded lobbyists in the Wisconsin legislature, and have played an increasingly central role in promoting Gov. Walker’s overall agenda. As state Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Madison) noted last year, “The new 800-pound gorilla— actually it’s more of a 1,200-pound gorilla —is the tax-funded-voucher groups. They’ve become the most powerful lobbying entity in the state.”[ii]

Who is Hispanics for School Choice?  What are its connections to Scott Jensen? What is the involvement of the American Federation for Children, a well-known conservative powerhouse headed by a former chair of the Republican Party in Michigan?

Republicans Recruit Right Wing Ideologue as Expert on Wisconsin Reading Bill

There was a hearing on Feb. 15 about Governor Scott Walker’s “Read To Lead” initiative.

The chief expert that the Republican co-chairs, Rep. Kestell and Sen. Olson, brought in to testify on reading screening and teacher evaluation, was University of Arkansas professor Sandra Stotsky, author of Losing Our Language: How Multicultural Classroom Instruction Is Undermining Our Children’s Ability to Read, Write, and Reason. She has also been involved in the anti-ethnic studies movement in Arizona. Following is an article on Stotsky’s role in the banning of ethnic studies in the Tucson Arizona school district.

http://tucsoncitizen.com/three-sonorans/2011/09/23/sandra-stotsky-the-right-wing-professor-from-arkansas-that-arizona-will-use-to-ban-ethnic-studies-in-tucson/

Montana Supreme Court Rejects Citizens United

Montana State Supreme Court: Citizens United Not Welcome Here

Wednesday 4 January 2012

by: Sam Ferguson, Truthout

In a rebuke to the United States Supreme Court, the Supreme Court of Montana has held that Citizens United does not apply to Montana campaign finance law.

Last Friday, the Montana Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a 1912 voter initiative – the Corrupt Practices Act – that prohibits corporations from making contributions to or expenditures on behalf of state political candidates and political parties. In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that a similar federal prohibition was unconstitutional, prompting a wave of bills and court rulings that erased prohibitions on corporate and union political expenditures around the country.

“For over 100 years, Montana has had an electoral system that preserves the integrity of the political process, encourages full participation and safeguards against corruption,” state Attorney General Steve Bullock said in a statement after the ruling, adding, “the [Montana] Supreme Court’s decision upholds that system and is truly a victory for all Montanans.”

ALSO SEE: David Cobb – ‘Citizens United’ Doesn’t Fly in Big Sky State (Video)

The Montana Court cited the state’s “unique” history, culture and economy in justifying the decision not to follow Citizens United.

“With the infusion of unlimited corporate money in support of or opposition to a targeted candidate,” wrote Chief Justice Mike McGrath, in a 5-2 decision, “the average citizen candidate would be unable to compete against the corporate-sponsored candidate, and Montana citizens, who for over 100 years have made their modest election contributions meaningfully count would be effectively shut out of the process.”

Under the First Amendment, limits on speech are justified only if the government can demonstrate a “compelling” interest for the limitation. The Montana high court ruled that the state had several compelling interests: preventing the corrupting influence of large political expenditures; guarding against Montana’s susceptibility to corruption because of its low-cost, grass roots political culture; and stemming the threat posed by out-of-state economic interests that have a financial stake in Montana’s agriculture and resource-extraction based economy.

But in Citizens United, Justice Anthony Kennedy held that the government may “not deprive the public of the right and privilege to determine for itself what speech and speakers are worthy of consideration.” In other words, the government may not quiet the voice of some speakers in an effort to boost the voice of others. The Supreme Court also held that there is no compelling interest in limiting so-called “independent expenditures,” because such limitations do not prevent corruption.

UCLA law Professor Eugene Volokh wrote on his influential legal blog, The Volokh Conspiracy, that “the disagreement with Citizens United is so striking that it is likely that the Supreme Court will agree to hear the case and will reverse the Montana Supreme Court’s decision.”

Previously, a lower court in Montana ruled the state’s law limiting campaign spending unconstitutional, saying, “Citizens United is unequivocal: the government may not prohibit independent and indirect corporate expenditures on political speech.”

Montana’s Corrupt Practices Act

Montana’s 1912 initiative was adopted in response to considerable corruption in the state government, according to the opinion. Around the turn of the century, the so-called “Copper Kings,” powerful mining barons, ruled Montana through campaign spending and bribery. One such baron, William A. Clark, was elected to the United States Senate in 1899 after buying votes in the Montana Legislature. He was unseated and the scandal helped lead to the passage of the 17th Amendment, which requires the direct election of senators.

Before the adoption of the Corrupt Practices Act, “the State of Montana and its government were operating under a mere shell of legal authority,” said the court in Friday’s majority opinion, “and the real social and political power was wielded by powerful corporate managers to further their own business interests.”

The court reasoned that the interest in protecting against the corrupting influence of money on the political system remains meaningful 100 years after Montana voters adopted the Corrupt Practices Act. “Does a State have to repeal or invalidate its murder prohibition if the homicide rate declines? We think not. Issues of corporate influence, sparse population, dependence upon agriculture and extractive resource development, location as a transportation corridor and low campaign costs make Montana especially vulnerable to continued efforts of corporate control to the detriment of democracy and the republican form of government.”

Justice James Nelson wrote in dissent that “[t]he language of Citizens United … is remarkably sweeping and leaves virtually no conceivable basis for muzzling or otherwise restricting corporate political speech in the form of independent expenditures…. As much as I would like to rule in favor of the State, I cannot in good faith do so.”

Montana First Court to Challenge Supreme Court on Citizens United Ruling

The Montana Supreme Court is the only state court so far to uphold a ban on corporate political expenditures in the wake of Citizens United. The Colorado Supreme Court held its own corporate expenditure ban unconstitutional in March 2010. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 11 states have also repealed bans on corporate expenditures, and administrative agencies in five states have declared corporate political expenditure bans unconstitutional.

States may still ban direct corporate contributions to candidates or expenditures coordinated with candidates.

The three plaintiffs who sued to roll back Montana’s election law limiting campaign contributions are a sole-proprietor painting business, an influential Montana gun-rights organization and an out-of-state advocacy group. The advocacy group, Western Tradition Partnership, has renamed itself American Tradition Partnership (ATP). According to its web site, ATP is “dedicated to fighting environmental extremism and promoting responsible development and management of land, water and natural resources.”

“The Montana Supreme Court, through this decision, has shown contempt for the overriding law of the land and has thumbed its nose at the United States Supreme Court, which has specifically held that the State of Montana has no interest in prohibiting people who associate together from speaking,” said ATP Executive Director Donald Ferguson.

John Bonifaz, director of Free Speech for People, a group dedicated to overturning Citizens United, said in a statement that the ruling sets up “the first test case for the US Supreme Court to revisit its Citizens United Decision, a decision which poses a direct and serious threat to our democracy.”

The plaintiffs have until March 29 to seek review by the United States Supreme Court.

Holiday Greeting to All My Scrooge and Grinch Friends

From Larry Miller

Have a wonderful holiday, with all my blessings, to those of you who—

– are without compassion,

– think facts don’t matter,

–will not lift a finger to help another human being,

–like tax breaks for the rich,

– are proud that the Bradley Foundation is located in Milwaukee,

–think Scott Walker is doing a fine job,

–respond to my blog with disdain and anger,

– think the Tea Party has a point,

– miss the good old days of Ronald Reagan,

–think the unemployed should just get a job,

–think the homeless should just find a place to live,

–prefer the 1% to the 99%,

– drive slowly in the left hand lane to Madison,

–believe in the MMAC,

–think Michael Gableman is an honorable Wisconsin State Supreme Court Justice,

–think Milwaukee Public Schools should be blown up,

–think teachers need to stop whining,

–rely on Charlie Sykes and Rush Limbaugh for their news,

–think climate change (global warming) is not human generated,

–think that Newt Gingrich can save America,

–think Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security should be privatized, and

–think if you just work hard, you will experience the American dream.

Newt Gingrich berates poor and black children

Larry Miller Published Dec. 18, 2011 http://onmilwaukee.com

In recent statements Newt Gingrich argued that “Really poor children in really poor neighborhoods have no habits of work and have nobody around them who works … So they have no habit of showing up on Monday.”

Alluding to “43% of black teenage unemployment,” he said, “What if they cleaned the bathrooms? What if they mopped the floors? (What) if they had money of their own and didn’t have to become a pimp, prostitute or drug dealer?”

Gingrich’s implication that poor and black children are lazy and undisciplined is the same racist and revisionist historical argument that was used in defense of slavery, Jim Crow segregation and job discrimination. He adds to this insult that black teenagers should become cheap labor to replace janitorial services.

I wonder how many homes of the “really poor” and working poor Mr. Gingrich has visited.

As an MPS teacher, I served the children and families Gingrich is stereotyping. Since the introduction of W-2 in Wisconsin, I know very few households where no one is working. In fact, in most households more than one person is working, including teenagers, in order to have spending money and often to help support their families. The problem is they are working at low-wage jobs.

I often helped students get jobs. I would help them fill out applications, provide references and accompany them when they went to make first contact with prospective employers. Because of the need to work, many of my students were not able to have a typical high school experience, having no time for sports and extracurricular activities.

Mr. Gingrich, no one wants to be poor. Money does matter.

Yes, Mr. Gingrich, the working poor are poor, but they are working hard to survive with the hope of achieving the American dream.