Correcting Shot in the Dark's Errors about ALEC Being Like NCSL

My friend Mitch Berg over on Shot in the Dark - to save any 'you know who you are' ambiguity or confusion, made the mistake, possibly a deliberate error, of conflating the NCSL and ALEC.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with one or both organizations, let me give you a brief introduction, because people on the right who want to try to dazzle you with their bullshit, to misinform and disinform you, will tell you they are the same when they are significantly different. 

As you look at the differences which are greater than any simiarities, keep in mind the concept of a line of dialog I heard recently on a television show, Justified.  While a dramatic series, the point was an excellent one for this context.  A corrupt sheriff, presented with the offer of a bribe in the form of a briefcase full of money asks, "If this is the carrot, what does the stick look like?", referring to the paired incentives of a carrot and a stick, a reward that comes with the possibility of an equal or greater punishment.
The NCSL I'm writing about is not  the British National College School Leadership entity for teachers, nor is it the National Capital Soccer League for kids in Washington D.C., and I'm not writing about the NCSL International, which is an organization about meteorology.  No, I'm writing about the NCSL that is the acronym for the National Conference of State Legislatures.  That NCSL is an NGO - non-governmental organization - for the people who work in our state legislatures, both staff and state senators and state representatives.

Mitch seems to defend anything that conservatives do, no matter how bad, how corrupt; he will make excuses, he will try to deflect fair and legitimate criticism. In his eyes, if it is conservative, it cannot be bad, and if it is, apparently it's ok to just lie about it to his readers.  I'm sure in the eyes of the ALEC members they're not bad, they're just doing what they need to do to get their causes rammed through resistance, and to get themselves elected over and over. If that means doing the bidding of special interests to give the corporations significantly greater profits through the auspices of a secretive organization, I'm sure they rationalize to themselves that's ok.  I suspect that unlike the fictional sheriff and the bribe, they aren't honest enough with themselves to recognize either the carrot or the stick, or to even acknowledge the corrupt aspects of the transaction.  It should be a big red flag to them when they aren't candid about the source of the legislation they introduce.

Unlike ALEC drafted legislation, legislators don't lie about NCSL content, which is bi-partisan rather than 'Buy-partisan' or 'bought' partisan.

So.......what is ALEC?  I've been writing about it here a bit, and will be doing so even more in the near future.  ALEC is a shady and shadowy organization through which special interest groups, rich organizations and a few rich individuals like the Koch brothers and the Walton of WalMart family, spend a lot of money on conservative legislators, both state and federal, to get them to submit THEIR legislation, legislation that will benefit THEM at your expense.    Here is the opening paragraph from wikipedia on ALEC:

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is a politically conservative ^[1] 501(c)(3) nonprofit policy organization, consisting of both state legislators and members of the private sector, mostly representing corporations. ALEC's mission statement describes the organization's purpose as the advancement of free-market principles, limited government, federalism, and individual liberty. Among other activities, the group provides a venue for private individuals and corporations to assist politicians in developing what it considers model laws serving the economic and political aims of its members.

Note, it's MEMBERS are all conservative, and the interests served are those of the special interests, the corporations, who benefit directly and indirectly, from the legislation they draft.  It is an organization specializing in culture war and extracting money from the 99% of the citizens of this country.

You will never, ever, find the NCSL for example doing things like this, because the NCSL activities are open and public:

Wisconsin Dem State Rep. Kicked Out Of ALEC Conference

Wisconsin State Rep. Mark Pocan (D) was kicked out the American Legislative Exchange Council conference in New Orleans today despite being a a dues-paying member of the organization and receiving an invitation to the event, Wisconsin blog Dane101 reports. “I was still kicked out of the cigar reception by an employee of ALEC. ALEC has become a secret society where they will kick out anyone with a video camera, tape recorder or an original opinion,” he said in a statement. In addition to attending the conference for legislative reasons, Pocan was covering the event for a progressive publication, but ALEC was not allowing many reporters, including ThinkProgress’ Lee Fang and Scott Keyes, who were violently removed from the conference yesterday.

For convenient contrast, here is the opening paragraph from wikipedia on the NCSL: (emphasis added is mine, to point out differences - DG)

The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) is a bipartisan non-governmental organization (NGO) established in 1975 to serve the members and staff of state legislatures of the United States (states, commonwealths, and territories). NCSL provides research, technical assistance and opportunities for policymakers to exchange ideas on the most pressing state issues and is an effective and respected advocate for the interests of the states in the American federal system. It has three objectives: to improve the quality and effectiveness of state legislatures; to promote policy innovation and communication among state legislatures; and to ensure state legislatures a strong, cohesive voice in the federal system.
All state legislators and staff members are automatically members of NCSL. NCSL provides research, publications, and networking opportunities to aid, train, and serve its members in a wide variety of ways.
NCSL is the premier legislative organization in the country and maintains relationships with the smaller policy organizations like the Council for State Governments (CSG). CSG representatives sit on NCSL's Executive Committee and NCSL representatives sit on CSG's Executive Committee and Governing Board.

The Center for Media and Democracy's PR Watch did an excellent comparison between the two organizations, one which refutes the bogus claims the two entities are alike or similar in significant ways. They are not.

What this excellent article doesn't point out is that the right wing PACs and SuperPACs, entities which are funded by largely the EXACT same special interest corporations and individuals reward those legislators who toe their line, who submit and force through their legislation largely unchanged, with campaign contributions and with election support. As we have seen in the right wing primaries, where only extreme right candidates are running, the domination of the airwaves, the media control of the message, is enormous. In more than 90% of races, the candidates with the most money spent win.

Renenber that carrot and stick comparison earlier?

This amounts to corporations and wealthy individuals buying elections, buying candidates, and then through entities like ALEC, having those same individuals they helped get elected in turn do their legislative bidding, in state after state across the country. The similarity between the legislation that is passed is almost eerie, often identical except for the name of the state in the legislation.

This, in spite of the fact that the challenges to that legislation, like the challenges to the Voter ID bills as an example, have been very very costly for states to defend, and do not stand up well to challenges in court - ALSO unlike the NCSL.  Heck, ALEC doesn't have to pay for THAT; we do.

The essential difference between ALEC and the NCSL is the difference between government bought by big money and big business interests, as distinct from government by the people and for the people. If you believe businesses are people, then you see no conflict. Romney was wrong however, corporations are NOT people, and through ALEC, corporations turn government against the interests of real, human beings, real people.

A Comparison of ALEC and NCSL
Submitted by Lisa Graves on July 13, 2011
 ALEC Has Corporate Leaders and Members, who Vote on Bills Behind Closed Doors, While NCSL Does Not

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) may appear on the surface to mimic the bipartisan educational archetype of the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), but ALEC's corporate governance structure, near total reliance on corporate funding, and strong ties to legislators from predominantly one political party make it distinctly different. To learn more about ALEC overall, go to ALEC Exposed. (This article was co-authored by Jennifer Page, Brendan Fischer, and Mary Bottari.)

NCSL is run by an Executive Committee made up of legislators only. Corporations and their lobbyists are not members of NCSL committees. NCSL rarely if ever develops "model" legislation, but it does widely share its governance rules and substantive policy positions online.

An ALEC PR document obtained as part of the ALEC Exposed archive proclaims that: "Both legislators and corporate members have a voice and a vote in shaping policy." Formally, ALEC is jointly led by a corporate board of directors and a board of 23 state legislators, plus its executive director, who continues to work for the Bingham government affairs firm and who was a long-time lobbyist for Verizon/GTE. The chairman of ALEC's corporate board is a former tobacco lobbyist whose new firm helps businesses "manage the legislative and regulatory process." In all, the corporate board has 24 members (corporations, trade associations and other groups). Twenty of 24 representatives of these corporate entities are lobbyists. ALEC's annual joint board meeting is where model bills voted on. (ALEC says only the legislators have a final say on all model bills. ALEC has previously said that "The policies are debated and voted on by all members. Public and private members vote separately on policy.") Although ALEC's "public" board approves the "model" bills, corporations vote alongside politicians on ALEC's task forces on bills that are then forwarded to the board. Most corporate chairs of ALEC's task forces are also experienced lobbyists. ALEC says "no lobbying takes place."

ALEC has crowed that it gives business "an unparalleled opportunity to have its voice heard, and its perspective appreciated" in changes to state laws.[which sure sounds a lot like 'lobbying' without the transparency of.....regular lobbying - DG] Its model bills and resolutions have been published in state houses across the country, but without disclosing that they were approved through ALEC, or that corporations voted for the legal changes in advance.

Money: ALEC Is Funded Almost Entirely by Corporations, While NCSL Is Not

NCSL does not accept for-profit corporate members or donors. In 2010, NCSL's general fund was $16.8 million. State legislatures contribute about $10 million a year to NCSL. Most of the remainder comes from grants from federal agencies such as the federal Departments of Health and Human Services, Education, Energy, and Transportation, and from mainstream private foundations such as the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Pew Charitable Trusts, and the Annie E. Casey Foundation. It also has funds from the sale of NCSL publications. Its convention costs are covered by registration fees.

ALEC, on the other hand, is funded almost entirely by its corporate members. In 2009, ALEC's revenues were $6.3 million. About one percent ($82,981) of its revenues came from dues paid by state legislators. That is, over 98.6% of ALEC's money comes from sources other than legislative dues, including primarily funds from for-profit corporations and foundations funded by the family fortunes of corporate CEOs. In what could be called window dressing for its corporate coffers, ALEC charges state legislators a nominal fee of $50 a year to be members, which some legislators pay with tax dollars. Legislators also get a discounted rate for conferences and even "scholarships" to attend them. Corporations are charged up to 500 percent more in dues to become members and get to vote just like legislative members on ALEC task forces. Basic corporate dues range from $7,000 to $25,000 per year plus fees of between $2,500 and $10,000 to be on ALEC task forces with state legislators. ALEC's corporate donations and sponsorships subsidize its conventions.
ALEC also receives money from foundations that help fund information campaigns against addressing climate change and other issues. For example, two foundations connected to the Koch Industries oil fortune -- the Charles G. Koch Foundation and the Claude R. Lambe Foundation -- gave ALEC over $200,000 in 2009, in addition to corporate dues paid by the company. ALEC also gets checks from other right-wing non-profit groups, like the Allegheny Foundation, funded by the Scaifes, and Coors' Castle Rock Foundation, too.

Partisanship: Almost All of ALEC's Legislative Leaders are Republicans, While NCSL's Leadership Is Strictly Bipartisan

NCSL is led by a fully bipartisan group of legislators through an "Executive Committee." Each year, the chair of NCSL's Executive Committee rotates between Republican and Democratic legislators. This year, NCSL's president and Executive Committee Chair is state Senator Richard Moore (D-Massachusetts). The previous leader was state Senator Dan Balfour (R-Georgia). NSCL's committees are led in a similar bipartisan fashion, and its overall membership has a large number of legislators from both major political parties. Additionally, much of NCSL's staff is drawn from nonpartisan professional legislative staff of state legislatures across the country.

ALEC is led jointly by a corporate board and a 23-member public board. All of the public board members are Republican legislators, and the board is chaired by Rep. Noble Ellington (R-Louisiana). There is no indication that a Democratic legislator has ever chaired ALEC's public board. The legislators who co-chair each ALEC task force are all Republicans, and all but one of the leaders of each state delegation are Republicans. In all, ALEC's legislative leadership is 103 Republicans and one Democrat. ALEC does count some additional Democrats in its membership, but overall it is lopsided to the right of the political spectrum in its leaders and members.

ALEC also has an "advisory" board of "scholars," all of whom have been active in Republican administrations, politics, or right-wing causes -- at one point, ALEC's executive director stated, "The ALEC agenda is the Bush agenda," referring to the first president Bush. ALEC scholars are also connected to ALEC funders. For example, Steve Moore is on the Wall Street Journal editorial board and has devoted substantial time to David Koch's Americans for Prosperity to advance its agenda. Unlike NCSL, ALEC's staff is not non-partisan legislative professionals but has strong connections to other right-wing groups or funding, such as Koch Fellowships or internships.

ALEC has also given awards to luminaries on the right, including Charles and David Koch and former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. ALEC's alumni include the current Republican Speaker of the House, John Boehner (R-Ohio), and Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Virginia), as well as several controversial new governors like Scott Walker of Wisconsin, John Kasich of Ohio, and Jan Brewer of Arizona. Donald Rumsfeld was also the chairman of ALEC's corporate board when he headed G.D. Searle pharmaceutical and was between jobs as Secretary of Defense.

The Republican War on Sex and Women Continues From the GoJo: Governor Herbert Vetoes Ignorance Only Sex Ed

While it does make him a more fun-sounding governor than he really is, the following headline from the web site The Governor's Journal headline - aka GoJo - seems a bit misleading.  I have to give the governor a round of applause, a sustained standing ovation, for having the necessary moral courage to take a stand on what is really ignorance only sex eduction.

The governor has taken a stand which does NOT put religion above the interests of education and public health.  Abstinence is essentially a religious position, not a moral or legal one.  As such it is one that like contraception is largely ignored in our modern society.  We have come to recognize that the notion of sex ONLY within the bounds of marriage is not realistic, not necessary, and not desirable.  We recognize that sex is NOT only about reproduction, NOT only for having children.  It is about the expression and bonding through physical intimacy that is an important part of our emotional, psychological and physical lives, and which should be exercised responsibly - but not necessarily limited to marriage. 

If we strictly restricted sex to marriage, our lives would be the poorer for it.  According to the 2000 Census:

Among the 221.1 million people aged 15 and over in the United States in 2000:

• 120.2 million, or 54.4 percent, were now married;

• 41.0 million, or 18.5 percent, were widowed, divorced or separated; and

• 59.9 million, or 27.1 percent, were never married.

Using those numbers, 100.9 million people, or 45.6% are at some point in time, possibly for their whole lives, not in a marriage.  Our lives, in part because of our greater longevity, in part for other reasons, is no longer fitting into the pattern where a majority of people are married their entire adult lives.  The choice to believe that sex outside of that narrow relationship is always a sin is a matter of individual faith, it is not a moral absolute or ethical certainty.  Rather we can choose how we conduct ourselves in our intimate relationships with love and with respect.  Marriage is a legal contract; it can when chosen as such be a religious commitment.

But to impose that BELIEF, that RELIGIOUS BELIEF, as a calculated pattern of ignorance is wrong.  It is dangerous.  It is nothing more or less than a war on human sexuality.  Ignorance does not stop people from having sex, it causes them to contract and expose each other to disease and unplanned pregnancy.  Ignorance, not sex, is what is dangerous, and costly, and burdensome to our society.

There is absolutely NO legitimate justification for making the teaching of human biology, including human sexuality, and topics like contraception, in a modern world. Trying to make it a taboo, to ban it, is guaranteed to make people stupid, ignorant, and poor citizens.  It denies people choices, it denies people informed control over their lives. 

Abstinence is a choice that each of us must make for ourselves, not have the paternalistic nanny state of conservatives impose it on us, and least of all on vulnerable children who need to learn in order to be equipped to participate in a modern world.  The conservatives in our country fear they cannot persuade, so they use ignorance, and misinformation to try to control people - and they do it badly.  They do it in a way that harms people bodies and their minds and their hearts.  They do it in a way that destroys lives. That is not what religion should do, and it is most certainly not what 'Ignorance Only' education should do.

Ignorance only sex education is opposed by every major medical and psychological professional organization in the United States.  From the Sex Ed in the U.S. article on Wikipedia (as always, emphasis added is mine - DG)

These people on the right who keep passing abstinence only / ignorance only sex education legislation believe that we need values taught in conjunction with education about our bodies and our sexuality and our choices.  There is nothing about ignorance that does that.  There is nothing about comprehensive, medically accurate sexual education which precludes that. But it is time and past time that we promote the religious views in schools regarding abstinence. 

Criticism of abstinence-only sex education by the scientific and medical communities
Abstinence-only education has been criticized in official statements by the American Psychological Association,[16] the American Medical Association,[48] the National Association of School Psychologists,[18] the Society for Adolescent Medicine,[21] the American College Health Association,[21] the American Academy of Pediatrics,[19] and the American Public Health Association,[20] which all maintain that sex education needs to be comprehensive to be effective.
The AMA "urges schools to implement comprehensive... sexuality education programs that... include an integrated strategy for making condoms available to students and for providing both factual information and skill-building related to reproductive biology, sexual abstinence, sexual responsibility, contraceptives including condoms, alternatives in birth control, and other issues aimed at prevention of pregnancy and sexual transmission of diseases... [and] opposes the sole use of abstinence-only education..."[48]
The American Academy of Pediatrics states that "Abstinence-only programs have not demonstrated successful outcomes with regard to delayed initiation of sexual activity or use of safer sex practices... Programs that encourage abstinence as the best option for adolescents, but offer a discussion of HIV prevention and contraception as the best approach for adolescents who are sexually active, have been shown to delay the initiation of sexual activity and increase the proportion of sexually active adolescents who reported using birth control."[19]
On August 4, 2007, the British Medical Journal published an editorial concluding that there is "no evidence" that abstinence-only sex education programs "reduce risky sexual behaviours, incidence of sexually transmitted infections, or pregnancy" in "high income countries".[49]

A comprehensive review of 115 program evaluations published in November 2007 by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy found that two-thirds of sex education programs focusing on both abstinence and contraception had a positive effect on teen sexual behavior. The same study found no strong evidence that abstinence-only programs delayed the initiation of sex, hastened the return to abstinence, or reduced the number of sexual partners.[50][51] According to the study authorJoycelyn Elders, former Surgeon General of the United States, is a notable critic of abstinence-only sex education. She was among the interviewees Penn & Teller included in their Bullshit! episode on the subject.[52]

:"Even though there does not exist strong evidence that any particular abstinence program is effective at delaying sex or reducing sexual behavior, one should not conclude that all abstinence programs are ineffective. After all, programs are diverse, fewer than 10 rigorous studies of these programs have been carried out, and studies of two programs have provided modestly encouraging results. In sum, studies of abstinence programs have not produced sufficient evidence to justify their widespread dissemination."

Arthur Caplan, director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, argues that abstinence-only sex education leads to the opposite of the intended results by spreading ignorance regarding sexually transmitted diseases and the proper use of contraceptives to prevent both infections and pregnancy.[53]
In July 2009, researchers from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released their analysis of national data collected between 2002 and 2007. Their findings included:[54]
“ This report identifies a number of concerns regarding the sexual and reproductive health of our nation's young people... It is disheartening that after years of improvement with respect to teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, we now see signs that progress is stalling and many of these trends are going in the wrong direction ”

— Janet Collins, director of the CDC's National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, July 17

Birth rates among U.S. teens had increased in 2006 and 2007, following large declines from 1991 to 2005.

About one-third of adolescents had not received instructions on methods of birth control before age 18.

In 2004, there were about 745,000 pregnancies among females younger than 20, including an estimated 16,000 pregnancies among girls between 10 and 14.

In 2006, about one million young people aged 10 to 24 were reported to have chlamydia, gonorrhea, or syphilis. Nearly one-quarter of females aged 15 to 19, and 45% of females aged 20 to 24, had a human papillomavirus infection during 2003 and 2004.

In 2006, the majority of new diagnoses of HIV infection among young people occurred among males and those aged 20 to 24.

From 2004 to 2006, about 100,000 females aged 10 to 24 visited a hospital emergency department for nonfatal sexual assault, including 30,000 females aged 10 to 14.

Hispanic teens aged 15 to 19 are much more likely to become pregnant (132.8 births per 1,000 females) than non-Hispanic blacks (128 per 1,000) and non-Hispanic whites (45.2 per 1,000)

Non-Hispanic black youth in all age groups have the highest rates of new HIV and AIDS diagnoses.

We need to take back this country from the bad decisions, the failed philosophy, of conservatives, of religious right extremists, who make culture war on women, on education, on science.  We cannot allow people who believe that ignorance is a good idea for our schools because of their faith choices to prevail.  If we do not succeed in removing these people from control of curricula and from control of funding, we will become backward, we will return to dark ages of millenia past.  These people are wrong and they are harmful.  Even the more sane among their own, like this governor in Utah, are beginning to recognize the perils of their extremism."Herbert Vetoes Abstinence"

By GoJo Staff on March 17, 2012

Utah Governor Gary Herbert(R) has vetoed a bill that would have severely restricted sex education in public schools.
The bill would have required educators to teach abstinence only and would forbid instruction on contraception and other matters related to human sexuality.
Herbert said the bill went too far and denied parents the right to choose how their children receive information about sex. Herbert was praised by Democrats for vetoing the legislation, but criticized for doing it after hours, on a Friday night.

Abstinence is a choice, based on a belief one decides to embrace.  Each of us is free to make a different choice, to embrace a different belief.  That choice should not be made for other people by the religious right.  We are not a theocracy, they should not be emulating the Taliban.This is the religious right, this time in Utah, demonstrating again how they wish to be the American equivalent of the Taliban.  The Taliban destroys schools, keeps girls and women ignorant to control them, and restricts education to religious approved education for boys.  Like the Taliban, the religious right wants to control people by keeping them stupid, by denying them education and by impairing their ability to decide their lives for themselves. This is a narrow slice of that same pie in Utah.  Hoorah! for the governor for sending that back to them on a plate.

appy St. Patrick's Day to all our readers, and a special Happy traditional 'Saint's Day' to those named Patrick.  (for more on that tradition, follow the link above)

I particularly enjoy the patterns of Celtic Knotwork, and thought I would share this interesting pattern done in it as my Irish gift of the day, in celebration. I wish I could have adapted the blogger fonts to the classic celtic uncial script I love as well.  Happy St. Pat's!     - Dog Gone   

Republicans, Rutting Like Pop Go the Weasles, on the Taxpayer Nickel

Minnesota celebrated the Ides of March with this article in the STrib about the peccadilloes at the Capital building, encompassed in THIS DOCUMENT.

Not only were the Republicans taking our money for not getting any important legislation done, causing the government stoppage last summer - and taking paychecks while they did nothing during it - now they want to ......oh, now what was it that Rush Limbaugh called it so very recently that conservatives did NOT criticize him for except with the mildest reproofs for the words slut and prostitute?

Oh, yes. I remember now.  Limbaugh made a very large, ugly noise about a female law student wanting to be paid to have sex, lots and lots and lots of sex.  Rush suggested a lack of ability to walk as a result, and he also called for on-line videos of it. 

He was insisting that Sandra Fluke was trying to get paid with tax payers money for having sex.

Now, of course she wasn't.  She was trying to get urgent and serious health care that involved hormone replacement therapy in the form of birth control pills for a friend who had a problem with cystic tumors on her ovaries, her GAY friend who was not likely to be at risk for conception in her romantic relationship, her gay friend who lost her ovary because of a lack of pharmaceutical coverage.

But isn't that exactly what Michael Brodkorb is doing, after actually having staffer sex - making a grab for taxpayer money?  Someone alert the media over at Clear Channel and Premier Radio!!!!  Dittoheads! Alert! Alert! By all means call your fearless leader, Viagra swilling Rush Limbaugh IMMEDIATELY!  I'm sure that the Rushjob and all of you dittohead conservatives are TERRIBLY CONCERNED about the abuse of the taxpayers when it is a conservative trying to get paid for his private sex life, right?

Oh, my! what a resounding NO that appears to be, when it is a conservative, a Republican.  Oh, my! What a resounding lack of the same treatment from conservatives for a man instead of a woman, a man WHO ACTUALLY HAD LOTS AND LOTS OF ILLICIT, ADULTEROUS SEX,  compared to the abuse given to a woman who hadn't done what Limbaugh accused her of doing.  Give males preferential treatment much, conservatives?   Double-standard much, ditto-heads?

I'd like to believe that you simply agree that what Limbaugh did was so wrong that Republicans don't care to repeat it, but that doesn't appear to be the case.  Republicans are still waging culture war on women, while giving men a free pass, regardless of men being the superior or the subordinate.

So, according to the STrib, Brodkorb is admitting what he did, which is wrong, and which actually WAS reasonable and legitimate grounds for firing him. 

The Republicans are claiming that wasn't why he was fired, he was fired because his position was eliminated - I'll skip the easy ugly word play - but they don't seem to deny that his position was eliminated precisely because he had an adulterous affair with Amy Koch, who then resigned her position, but continued to take money after.....what was that phrase that Limbaugh kept going back to over and over - after getting paid by taxpayers while apparently having wild adulterous sex with her subordinate co-worker for a period of time.

popsie

weasel

Having sex with your boss is wrong, and it does not appear that Brodkorb is alleging it was non-consensual, which would of course be a hard claim to sell.   So this is NOT sexual harassment being alleged for the payout and the payoff to Brodkorb.

Amy Koch is not admitting who her partner was, but she's been outed.  I'd like to know why she's still on the job after that kind of misconduct.  Presumably sleeping with your staffer violates the Human Resources rules in the legislature the same way it usually does in the private sector or union jobs in the public sector.  She should be removed from office through the ethics violation procedure, not simply self-demoted.

It is wrong for superiors to have sex with their subordinate employees because there is a conflict of interest in the supervision of that employee, there are questions about raises and job evaluations being compromised by a physical sexual relationship.  There are issues of favoritism, to the subordinate, that differ from the treatment of other employees, and there are issues of unequal power in the relationship.  There is the inappropriateness of sex in a workplace relationship.

And now there is the risk of a payout of $500,000 plus legal fees, plus the costs to the taxpayer for the legislature lawyering.

Michael Brodkorb, in a rare display of exactly how sleazy he is, is claiming that he was treated differently from ALL THE OTHER staffers and elected politicos who were going at it like minks on the desks and behind every marble column lining the hallways.

Really?  I don't approve of this rampant illicit tax-payer funded, tax-payer-$-risking illicit sex, no matter what partisan affiliation the participants espoused, and no matter if they had a spouse or not.  Because hopefully, those who are doing so will stop, if they have not already ceased their misconduct.

But NONE OF THEM were fired because their bosses were the leader of the Senate who voluntarily stepped down.  Those nameless, faceless, oversexed others MAY very well be guilty of misconduct, but apparently they are more discreet, they did not make it the same problem.  Wrong is wrong.  But someone else being wrong, someone else DOING wrong, doesn't excuse Michael Brodkorb.

He was an at-will hire, he can be fired for cause, or not for cause.  He was fired because his assignment was ended, in part through his own damned fault, for behaving badly.

We should all be extremely grateful that the legislature presumably provides health care coverage that includes contraception and STD testing, unlike college students, unlike so very many ordinary citizens, unlike at least some of the women victimized by Rush Limbaugh.

I suppose we should be grateful he had fewer involvements than Herman Cain; that was expensive, but not that I recall $500,000 worth.

Brodkorb is trying to do through legal means what would under other circumstances amounts to extortion.

I say bring it.  If he wants to play that game, do it.  I hope very much that the Republicans will not shield any more of their own from the consequences of their misconduct, and I wouldn't expect them to shield any Democrats.  Rather, I'd be expecting them to exploit any Democratic misconduct.

Some people feel that the Republican Party was really who hired and employed Michael Brodkorb.  I suppose we could expect them to pay for a settlement with the legal extortioner Brodkorb, except that the party of fiscal responsibility wasn't responsible, and is in the hole a few million dollars, not to mention the stiffing of the counties for those recount expenditures back in 2010, courtesy of power puppeteer Tony Sutton, who should depart into well deserved disgrace and oblivion.

That terrible raging concern you have to PRESERVE marriage by restricting legal relationships to one man and  one woman, denying anyone who is same-sex oriented the same loving committed LEGAL relationship?  That would better be served in our legislature by married people not committing adulter, and costing us up the sweet wazoo.

Botched and irresponsible fiscal dealings; family values boasting adulterers and fornicators; and of course the party of good government proving that they can't keep government running after the shut-down last summer, and that they cannot manage their employees, their Human Resources tasks either.  The Republicans are NOT the party of family values, they are the party of bigotry, hatred, and hypocrisy.  The Republicans are NOT the party of fiscal responsibility, they are the party of financial disaster and spending money they do not have.  The Republicans are NOT the party of good government; they've botched one thing after another.  They have failed to address the issues for which they were elected, notably jobs; and they have waged an unpopular culture war that parallels the one on the national scene that has earned the right such high disapproval ratings (except for the extremist fringies).

Michael Brodkorb is a sleazy, grasping, greedy gigolo who is trying to rip off the tax payers, the citizens, the residents of Minnesota.  Amy Koch is best left to Rush Limbaugh to characterize.  Tony Sutton is incompetent, and the GOP should get their outrageous salary back from him for his failures, and use it to pay the GOP debt.  The Republicans in the legislature should straighten up and start doing a better job than they have treated us all to - on our own nickel - since 2010 for the remaining time they have in office before they are kicked out in the November election.  At that time I expect them to take their ALEC-legislating corrupt selves off our public stage, get off their backs on their desks and sofas in their Capital office and meeting spaces, and take themselves OUT of our government.  YOU HAVE FAILED.

Unless they have the decency to do so sooner, but there isn't much indication of that happening; only more of the same old same old.

WE should not be out of pocket one nickel.  We should not be spending tax payer dollars that could better be spent to serve the citizens of Minnesota.  It is not the politicians and staffers who are screwing each other; WE are the ones being screwed, and that is what has to stop.  Or at the very least, they should provide us contraceptives and other reproductive care the way they do themselves, that allow the legislators and the staffers to have lots of wild sex on the taxpayer $, services that should be available as a public health concern, to benefit us, with our own money.

And the hypocrite windbag Limbaugh is silent on the topic.  Such sweet silence, and all the quieter without the noise from those advertisers marketing those goods and services. 

Corruption and Congress

HOW does corruption work in government?
Here's how, about 1 minute 15 seconds in on this youtube video.



But it is worth noting that the recent resignation from Goldman Sachs was NOT the first of its kind.

Here is the 'current statement' from an author, Nomi Prin, who left the same Goldman Sachs much earlier, for very similar reasons, and went on to write award winning books about it:

She is the author of "Other People’s Money: The Corporate Mugging of America" (The New Press, October 2004), a devastating exposé into corporate corruption, political collusion and Wall Street deception. "Other People's Money" was chosen as a Best Book of 2004 by The Economist, Barron's and The Library Journal.

My Statement Regarding Greg Smith's Goldman Resignation

Thursday 15 March 2012

by: Nomi Prins, Nomi Prins' Blog
News Report
The Goldman Sachs building. (Photo: Waldemar Koscielny / Flickr)

Today, I have received dozens of media requests and hundreds of emails regarding former Goldman Sachs executive, Greg Smith's gutsy, and internationally resonating, public resignation.

I applaud Smith's decision to bring the nature of Goldman's profit-making strategies to the forefront of the global population's discourse, as so many others have been doing through books, investigative journalism, and the Occupy movements over the past decade since my book, Other People's Money, was written after I resigned from Goldman. It would be great if Smith's illuminations would serve as the turning point around which serious examination and re-regulation of the banking system framework would transpire.
The inherent conflict of interest that firms such as Goldman possess through enjoying the multiple roles of 'market-maker,' 'securities creator' and 'client-advisor' foster an environment rife with systemic risk. The trading revenue portion of Goldman's profits, as well as its derivatives vs. assets ratio, is the highest amongst the American bank holding companies. And yet, in the fall of 2008, the Federal Reserve approved Goldman Sachs (along with Morgan Stanley) to alter its moniker from investment bank to bank holding company, thereby allowing it to gain access to federal subsidies and potential ongoing support.

In this regard, the firm's practices should remain under intense scrutiny by the general public and legislators. I would hope that the message behind Smith's resignation will not be obfuscated by debates over the extent to which the firm's clients are either supported or exploited, but instead, serve as a powerful call to foster a more-strictly delineated and less reckless financial system..

We need a safe, honest, secure and well-policed, well regulated market system, one that is more like a level playing field than a wilderness populated by outlaws and robbers operating behind desks.

The GOP Big Tent Is Becoming a Straight Jacket

This photo, from other blogs, is by way of MikeB's blog.  It says it all.

And the reference to the big tent and the straight jacket is because the lunatic fringe and extremists, including the Tea Party idiots, have hijacked it.

MODERATE is NOT a dirty word.  It is the antithesis of EXTREMIST.

The Colbert Report - more on MODERATE, COMPROMISE, CONSENSUS are not dirty words

Colbert interviews noted, iconic Republican strategist Mark McKinnon. Not a liberal, not an extremist, not a Tea Partier. A sane, moderate, prominent REPUBLICAN who notes the same things I did in the earlier post.

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

ALEC drafted Legislation: Castle Laws and Corporations

Trayvon Martin is a young black teen in Florida who was unarmed, walking home from the store with a pocket full of candy for his brother, minding his own business, when he was shot by a vigilante self-appointed neighborhood watch captain with a history of violence. The case, which arises out of the Florida Castle Doctrine laws, reflects a gun nut who took his gun under the auspices of his concealed carry permit, followed and harrassed Trayvon Martin in his car, and then got out of the car engaging in a physical confrontation with the much smaller teen, ending with shooting him, despite the police having directed him not to do so.

The older, larger, armed man, George Zimmerman, claims self-defense, even though neighbors reported they heard the boy calling for help. The police department has badly botched any investigation. Under Castle Doctrine in Florida -- as would have been the case here had the legislation not been vetoed, the right to 'self defense' is entirely subjective, extends beyond the home as defined by the Heller decision, and prevents the shooter from being held liable in a court of law for wrongful death as well as providing for minimal investigation, if any, and no prosecution. In this case, the shooter initiated the conflict with someone minding their own business. His comments on the 911 calls suggests an element of racism, as does the conduct of the police.

Trayvon Martin appears to have been the victim of lethal violence at the hands of a 'loose cannon' about whom there had been prior complaints within the gated community where the killing occurred. 

Trayvon Martin appears to be the victim of too-lax concealed carry permit laws, and of vigilante-ism.

Trayvon Martin appears to have been the victim of racism, and of police incompetence.  Certainly there appears to be some damning evidence of their misconduct.

That is because of the way that Castle Doctrine, ALEC-style, Republican-style, Tea Partier-style, Gun-nut style drafts legislation, so as NOT to hold people accountable for wrongly shooting other people. 

One of the worst aspects of the right-wing ALEC model Castle Doctrine law works, as was the case with our recent vetoed Shoot First legislation, is that it allows people to shoot others for subjective cause, but does not require them to face an assessment of objective cause.  If the shooter claims it was self-defense, and if the victim of the shooting is dead, there is no investigation or subsequent prosecution.  The word of the only person left standing is sufficient.  When someone is killed, when someone is shot to death - that is not enough.

"I felt like I was threatened" is all the assertion necessary.  It doesn't matter if the victim is smaller than the shooter, or weaker, or younger.  It doesn't matter if the victim is minding his own business on a public street, and the shooter provokes and pursues a conflict with an innocent victim.

Where the Heller decision limits one's right to self defense and firearms to the home, the new right-wing extremist legislation, promoted by ALEC, which was co-founded by the NRA, an organization that represents and lobbies for gun manufacturers, acts for gun manufacturers.  ALEC is a special interest group which has one agenda, and one agenda only - to make money for their members, which includes the founding organization of the NRA, and their gun manufacturer clients.  It is clear - if you tune out the rhetoric, the frantic ideology, and just follow the money.

I am not anti-gun, I am not anti-2nd Amendment or freedom.  I AM, adamantly, emphatically, against special interest manipulating our government and exploiting our citizens.  I AM, adamantly and emphatically, against ILLEGAL guns, of which we have far too many, and against gun violence, of which we have far too much.

The Shoot First legislation was badly flawed, but it also had some bad solutions to some very real problems that SHOULD be addressed by a consensus of our legislators, not by partisan party sell-outs to special interests.

First  - the cast of characters, then second, how the Trayvon Martin killing illustrates much of what is wrong with the Castle Doctrine legislation as it has been attempted in Minnesota, and as it has been passed in other - mostly right wing dominated - states, with tragic results.

The change in the purpose of the NRA and it's membership in ALEC was outlined in this article from the Milwaukee Express, from back in December 2008.

What the Gun Industry and the NRA Don’t Want You To Know
A Shepherd Q&A with Tom Diaz of the Violence Policy Center
By Lisa Kaiser

The gun industry and the National Rifle Association (NRA) don't want you to know that gun sales have stagnated for years, and their campaigns to legalize concealed carry and fight restrictions on the sales of highly lethal weapons are part of their strategy to boost stagnant gun sales.
Tom Diaz, senior policy analyst at the Violence Policy Center, argues that this business strategy does a disservice to the sport shooters and hunters who make up the bulk of the NRA's membership, and has resulted in turning the United States into the "last great market" for cheap and highly lethal weapons. Diaz, the author of Making a Killing and the forthcoming No Borders: Transnational Latino Gangs and American Law Enforcement, spoke to the Shepherd about the true motives of the gun industry, how President George Bush allowed assault-style weapons to be imported into the United States, and what President-elect Barack Obama should do about gun violence.
Shepherd:You're a gun-control advocate, but you are also a gun nut?
Diaz:I'm a former gun nut. Prior to 1994, I was a member of the NRA. I owned multiple firearms-handguns and assault rifles. I shot in pistol competitions. I favored the use of firearms. I even testified against the Washington, D.C., gun ban in a sort of NRA robot manner. I thought, "I'm a good person. Why should anyone take my guns away from me?"
Shepherd:So what happened?
Diaz:I was an attorney on the House of Representatives' crime subcommittee. I was hired to work on terrorism, but I ended up working on gun stuff. I put together some hearings for pending legislation. Now, remember, I'm from a military family. I learned how to shoot in the Boy Scouts in Mississippi. But these larger gun issues were sort of abstract to me. So I put together a hearing on kids and guns and began investigating it. I heard the kids' stories firsthand, from all over the United States, and from all socioeconomic groups.
What I realized was that the gun industry and manufacturers had changed the profile of who their target market was. It was not about self-defense or the right to bear arms. They were hyper-marketing very lethal guns and they flooded the U.S. with them. The NRA doesn't represent sport shooters and hunters. They were selling these killing machines. I was shocked and tormented by these kids' stories. One girl told a story of a friend literally dying in her arms from a stray bullet.
Shepherd:The average person, even the average gun owner, may not know how the gun industry is marketing to new groups of people. What exactly are they doing?
Diaz:This is something that a lot of sport shooters and hunters don't realize. Firearms are very durable products. They are not going to wear out if you take care of them. So how do I, as a gun manufacturer, get you to buy more guns? They recognize this problem. They discuss it. This is their innovation: In the past 25-30 years they have come up with new designs that are more lethal. They push them through magazine articles and gun shows.
Then there is the NRA campaign to allow concealed weapons to be carried everywhere. So the manufacturers started marketing small handguns, so you could walk around with a gun in your pocket. And they are marketing to women and children to broaden their market.
This is not on the radar of most hunters. But then they get hunters and recreational shooters all worked up about people trying to take their guns away. But I don't know any rational person in the gun-control movement who wants to take away someone's hunting rifle. But I am sickened by this proliferation of firearms. And they are inappropriately used when people are angry or depressed. And we are arming up criminals who shouldn't be able to get their hands on guns.
Shepherd:While the NRA is focused on the right to bear arms, you view gun ownership and gun violence as a public health issue. How does this change the discussion of gun ownership?
Diaz:First, adopting a public health perspective would allow us to know more about firearms and death caused by them. The industry has been instrumental in suppressing data on gun violence. Think about it: If you run a tire company that is making defective tires, and the tires cause cars to flip over, there are tracking systems that will alert people if there is a problem. There is data on the safety of every product except guns. That data is suppressed. But if we had it, we could end the debate on guns and crime because we would know the facts.
But the second thing a public health perspective would do is to consider where someone's right should be hemmed in because of the damage it could do to someone. There was a time when cars didn't have seat belts. But people realized that accidents are life-threatening, so now all cars are manufactured with seat belts. So if gun violence was addressed from a public health perspective, guns would not be eliminated. But we could control the types of firearms that are most lethal, like the military-style automatic weapons.
Shepherd:So if the information is being suppressed, who is gathering the data on gun violence?
Diaz:The gun lobby-by that I mean the NRA and the manufacturers-have deliberately shut down the sources of information. There is very little data collected by the federal government. Some data have been patched together from various sources, and much of the research is privately funded. From my point of view, that's insane. And think about it: If the gun manufacturers were so confident about the utilitarian nature of their product, then they wouldn't worry about the data collected on how they're used. The ATF [The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms] used to release their list of the top guns used in crimes each year. But legislation was passed and now the ATF can't release this data. We want that changed-we want full data and an open discussion. Even law enforcement has trouble getting this information. And there is no data on the guns being trafficked to Mexico. The ATF information is ridiculous. The Mexican government gave them the information, but the ATF won't break it out according to the types of guns being trafficked.
It doesn't make any sense. Would we try to create an energy policy without reliable information about how much is used, what the sources are, and what demand will be? That is just crazy.
Shepherd:How would you assess the Bush administration's stand on gun issues?
Diaz:This is not my opinion, but it's a factual judgment: This administration has been a disaster for the country. If there were a ratings system, and 1 was excellent and 10 was very bad, I would give them a 15 on gun issues.
The Bush administration has been prime co-conspirators with the gun industry. Secretly, the administration has opened the valve for the import of assault riles into the country. This is something that [current President Bush's] dad was against. His father's policy was that only firearms for sporting purposes could be imported into the country. But the current Bush administration-with no publicity-has opened that valve and the U.S. is now flooded with cheap and lethal assault weapons. The most problematic ones are coming in from Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. But they're coming from countries that wouldn't allow them to be sold locally-Brazil, some European countries; there's even a Canadian manufacturer of these weapons. The last great market for cheap guns is the United States, and Bush is complicit in this.
Shepherd:If you were one of Obama's advisers, what would you tell him?
Diaz:First, I would tell him to open up the information valve. The Freedom of Information Act means what it means. Information on gun violence should be collected and we should have a full debate. Second, I would tell him to shut down this valve that allows military-style assault weapons to be imported into the country. He can change that easily with an executive decision. Third, I would tell him to renew the debate about assault weapons. The 1994 law was a joke. The gun industry easily got around it because there were so many loopholes.

The way that information is controlled is just ONE of the many problems that originate with the NRA, and additionally with ALEC.

So what is the relationship between the NRA, the gun manufacturers, and ALEC?  Per usual, in the following the emphasis added is mine - DG.

From SourceWatch
National Rifle Association

The National Rifle Association (NRA) was founded in 1871 to "promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis," and is "widely recognized today as a major political force and as America's foremost defender of Second Amendment rights," according to the NRA website. [1] Affiliated organizations include the Institute for Legislative Action, the NRA's lobbying arm, and the NRA Foundation, a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization, which provides "a means to raise millions of dollars to fund gun safety and educational projects of benefit to the general public." [1]
It is reported that NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre made over $900,000 a year, circa 2007. [2]

All that sounds very nice; gun safety is important, and education - real education that is factual, not silly Tea Party revisionist education - is a laudable goal to have.  The problem comes where the NRA diverges from that goal, and becomes the front, the actors, the minions of the gun industry rather than the gun enthusiasts, whom they use and manipulate to be the 'Indians' to their 'Chiefs'.  It is when organizations of ordinary individuals are manipulated and used to shape and influence policies that serve those special interests INSTEAD of citizens and our society, that there is a problem.  When we have far, far higher numbers of gun deaths, gun accidents, murder/suicides and mass shootings every year, when guns are a significant part of the problem of domestic violence, stalking, and the culture of exploitation by older men of young underage girls, we have a problem --- a problem that other comparable countries, similar countries, do NOT have.  What is different? Guns and the gun industry, and the toxic nature of our exploitive special interest politics that do not serve us, but instead serve narrow profits for a few.

So.......how does that tie the NRA to ALEC?  Where IS that money trail?

continuing from Source Watch:
Ties to the American Legislative Exchange Council

The NRA is a long-time member and longtime funder of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), and an NRA representative has served on the Public Safety and Elections Task Force for many years. ."[3]

Tara Mica, NRA-Institute for Legislative Action State Liaison, was the co-chair of ALEC's Public Safety and Elections Task Force for a number of years, until the Spring of 2011. [4] [5] [6] (formerly known as the Criminal Justice and Homeland Security). [7]

The NRA was a "Vice-Chairman" level sponsor of 2011 American Legislative Exchange Council Annual Conference, which in 2010, equated to $25,000.[8]

See this video from 2008 where ALEC's Michael Huff discusses "ALEC’s strong relationship with the NRA and explains the support of gun rights and ownership." [9]

ALEC is not a lobby; it is not a front group. It is much more powerful than that. Through ALEC, behind closed doors, corporations hand state legislators the changes to the law they desire that directly benefit their bottom line. Along with legislators, corporations have membership in ALEC. Corporations sit on all nine ALEC task forces and vote with legislators to approve “model” bills. They have their own corporate governing board which meets jointly with the legislative board. (ALEC says that corporations do not vote on the board.) They fund almost all of ALEC's operations. Participating legislators, overwhelmingly conservative Republicans, then bring those proposals home and introduce them in statehouses across the land as their own brilliant ideas and important public policy innovations—without disclosing that corporations crafted and voted on the bills. ALEC boasts that it has over 1,000 of these bills introduced by legislative members every year, with one in every five of them enacted into law. ALEC describes itself as a “unique,” “unparalleled” and “unmatched” organization. It might be right. It is as if a state legislature had been reconstituted, yet corporations had pushed the people out the door.

There is a lot of money being spent here, and it is not being spent for fun, it is not being spent on behalf of ideology.  It is BUYING people with a certain ideology who have consented to sell their services in government to these special interests.  It is money that is being spent to increase profits, to increase the wealth inequality in this country by making the playing field less level for ordinary people.
In business or in politics, ALWAYS follow the money.  Be concerned, be very distrustful, if you see that money lying through propaganda or buying people's services who are supposed to be serving others.  THAT is corruption, and THAT is dangerous.
 Continuing from SourceWatch, continuing with my emphasis added:

Lobbying, Political Contributions and Independent Expenditures

According to the Center for Responsive Politics' Open Secrets website, "between 2001 and 2010, the NRA spent between $1.5 million and $2.7 million on federal-level lobbying efforts. During the 2010 election cycle, the NRA spent more than $7.2 million on independent expenditures at the federal level -- messages that advocate for or against political candidates. These messages primarily supported Republican candidates or opposed Democratic candidates." [10]
In the 2010 federal congressional elections, the NRA contributed $902,700 to Republican candidates and gave $373,350 to Democratic candidates.[11]
Starting with the 1994 elections, writes Richard Dreyfus in the American Prospect, "the NRA closely coordinated its election strategy with Republican Party officials. According to Tom King, a Democratic political strategist who calls the NRA a “wholly owned subsidiary of the Republican Party,” the Republicans provided the NRA with polling data and lists of vulnerable Democrats in order to coordinate campaigns. . . In addition to strategizing with the Republicans, the NRA-ostensibly a single-issue organization-was throwing its lot in with other conservative groups, many of whom had little interest in guns but shared the NRA’s desire to unseat Democrats. Together, these groups pursued lower taxes, free market economics, a smaller federal government, and a cutback in safety and health regulations." [12]
According to a 1999 CBS News report, "Campaign contributions from the NRA are proving to be an accurate barometer of how individual senators would vote on gun control." The report notes that "Thirty-two of the 34 senators who supported the NRA on each of four key gun control votes received money for their last election from the gun industry lobbying group." [13]

So how does this benefit the gun industry?  How does this influence politics, other than paying off, directly and indirectly, right wing politicians?  How does this manipulate and control our politics?  It does so in a couple of ways.  One of those ways is to get much more into politics, instead of gun safety and firearm education.  It gets involved in politics by becoming a media source, a wholly-owned and operated for special interest profit media source, that can control - or attempt to control, skew, and direct - information and misinformation and disinformation.  The right wing control of mass media goes waaaay beyond just Rupert Murdoch.  We have witnessed that just recently in the Rush Limbaugh/Clear Channel/Premier Radio/Bain Capital and Mitt Romney connection.

From SourceWatch :"NRA News"

In December 2003, Associated Press reported that the NRA was investigating buying a radio or television channel to allow it to bypass electioneering restrictions on advocacy groups. "We're looking at bringing a court case that we're as legitimate a media outlet as Disney or Viacom or Time-Warner," the NRA's executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre, told AP. "Why should they have an exclusive right to relay information to the public, and why should not NRA be considered as legitimate a news source as they are? That's never been explored legally," he said. [14]

Under the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law, advocacy groups with corporate or union funding can't run television or radio ads identifying candidates in the month before a primary or two months before a general election. However, news organizations are exempt from these restrictions. The NRA is already a major publisher, producing seven monthly publications for subscribers and newsstand sales; it sought to classify itself as a "media outlet," which would allow it to run commercials near elections. [14] (In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down key parts of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law in the Citizens United decision.)
In June 2004, the NRA revealed that it would commence broadcasting NRANews, a three hour daily program.

What is their strategy? HOW does the NRA, independently and through ALEC, benefit their manufacturing clients, the ones who appear to control and direct the MAJOR expenditure of the NRA funds?  Make no mistake, this kind of operation takes A LOT OF MONEY.  It isn't all coming from hunters and sports shooters, or the lunatic survivalist and militia members on the fringes who are accumulating their private arsenals, to the profit of the gun industry.

Continuing from SourceWatch, which references multiple sources to describe the calculated manipulation and marketing of a product against which there is a lot of 'push-back' where the product kills people in significant numbers, so as to keep the product profitable, in spite of the number of deaths, or illness or injury.

NRA and tobacco

The NRA was admired by Philip Morris management and cited as a template for carrying out effective pro-industry activities in which a corporation itself could not legitimately engage. The NRA is mentioned numerous times in the tobacco industry's documents as a successful lobbying group worthy of emulation. Operation Downunder Conference Notes (Philip Morris 1987) mention the NRA's "Make it Hurt" strategy (creating political risk for legislators where none otherwise exists). In a 1985 speech, Bill Murray of Philip Morris admires how the NRA has been able to motivate its members to action, something the tobacco industry had been unable to do. The NRA served as a template for the National Smokers Association (an early Philip Morris's smokers' rights group which preceded the National Smokers Alliance). A January 1988 PM Five Year Plan states,

In 1988, we intend to create local smokers' rights associations throughout the U.S. The basis for these associations will be a network of 50,000 "block captains" who will monitor local smoking issues, write or visit political decision-makers, write letters to local newspapers and generally serve as a grass roots voice for smokers' rights. We intend to link these "captains" to local, state and ultimately a national rights organization. Once the national organization is established and funded, we will spin the Smokers Newsletters into it and create a self-sustaining membership organization similar to the National Rifle Association.at Page 123

The tobacco industry also found common ground with the NRA as an organization that supported a controversial, yet legal product. A Tobacco Institute strategy document states industry strategy to

Identify large, influential groups concerned with freedom of expression and other Constitutional "rights" (e. g. the National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment, groups opposed to polygraph tests and the Fifth Amendment,minority groups and the 14th Amendment, etc.) and encourage their support for consistent and fair application of Constitutional protection for legal products and practices.[1]

The legislation sponsored and written by ALEC, sponsored and promoted by right wing politicians, does several things.  It allows more people, people who should NOT be carrying guns to carry.  It allows more people to do so in more places, under more circumstances - including alcohol consumption - to create greater use, and as a result greater dangers and more shootings.  It creates FAR LESS accountability, in the form of what investigation is allowed, when and how prosecution is allowed, and exemption from wrongful death liability.  It makes shootings legal in this country that previously would have been criminal, and that would be criminal in any other developed and civilized country in the world.  It negates centuries of common law and settled law and accepted legal thinking.  It kills people, injures and maims people, it endangers people, for one purpose and one purpose only - special interest profits.  It serves the profits of those special interests by using the camoflage of being about education and sportsmen; the NRA, and it's money masters at ALEC serve ONLY the profit margin of speical interests, notably the gun industry.

Follow the money; watch where and how it is spent; observe whether the expenditures are direct or indirect; observe the financial strategy.  Most of all - watch who gains profit, or control that subsequently enhances profit.  Follow the money, not the Magic-act style misdirection.  See who it serves, ultimately; watch who ends up paying, and watch who ends up harmed.

End Part 1; Part 2 - How does the Trayvon Martin killing illustrate the problems?

FactCheck.org Busts the Tea Party Attacking Republicans

It is an election year, as in war, too often the first casualty is truth - and fact.

In this case however, it is not bullets but bullshit that flies, and if is emanating from those who are extremists, those who tend to be ignorant or low-information voters.  In the case of the Tea Party, they tend to be funded by big money behind them in astro-turf entities, rather than genuinely grass-roots or populist organizations, and they tend to appeal to the simplistic thinking, low information voters.

FreedomWorks is Dick Army's front group for the Koch Brothers; it is a lobbying group for wealthy interests that seduces angry people by lying to them, organizing them, busing them around, and persuading them that they do not need to be informed or seek complex solutions for complex problems.  They appeal to a filiopietistic form of patriotism that is not particularly fact driven, one that simply rewrites and edits out any part of history that is inconvenient or that they don't like.

From SourceWatch, regarding Freedom Works,
under the heading of Funding (emphasis added is mine - DG):

In an article in the August 30, 2010 issue of The New Yorker magazine, author Jane Mayer links the billionaire brothers David Koch and Charles Koch, owners of Koch Industries to tea party movement funding. Mayer writes,

The anti-government fervor infusing the 2010 elections represents a political triumph for the Kochs. By giving money to “educate,” fund, and organize Tea Party protesters, they have helped turn their private agenda into a mass movement. Bruce Bartlett, a conservative economist and a historian, who once worked at the National Center for Policy Analysis, a Dallas-based think tank that the Kochs fund, said, “The problem with the whole libertarian movement is that it’s been all chiefs and no Indians. There haven’t been any actual people, like voters, who give a crap about it. So the problem for the Kochs has been trying to create a movement.” With the emergence of the Tea Party, he said, “everyone suddenly sees that for the first time there are Indians out there—people who can provide real ideological power.” The Kochs, he said, are “trying to shape and control and channel the populist uprising into their own policies.[1]

Reports indicate that the Tea Party Movement benefits from millions of dollars from conservative foundations that are derived from wealthy U.S. families and their business interests. Is appears that money to organize and implement the Movement flows primarily through two conservative groups: Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks.

In an April 9, 2009 article on ThinkProgress.org, Lee Fang reports that the principal organizers of Tea Party events are Americans for Prosperity and Freedom Works, two "lobbyist-run think tanks" that are "well funded" and that provide the logistics and organizing for the Tea Party movement from coast to coast. Media Matters reported that David Koch of Koch Industries was a co-founder of Citizens for a Sound Economy (CSE), the predecessor of FreedomWorks. David Koch was chairman of the board of directors of CSE.[2] CSE received substantial funding from David Koch of Koch Industries, which is the largest privately-held energy company in the country, and the conservative Koch Family Foundations, which make substantial annual donations to conservative think tanks, advocacy groups, etc. Media Matters reported that the Koch family has given more than $12 million to CSE (predecessor of FreedomWorks) between 1985 and 2002.[3][4]

REAL patriotism is where you know the facts about both the good and the bad in the past, where you think critically so as to discern the difference, and where you bother to learn the facts of the present.  Real patriotism requires us to be informed, and to think past the stupidly simplistic, and to be reality based.

An example of the Tea Party in action, as reported in the Wall Street Journal - hardly a bastion of liberalism, and less so since being taken over by the notoriously dishonest and immoral conservative Rupert Murdoch of the UK media scandals notoriety - reported on the Tennessee Tea Party attempting to take out teaching slavery from American history, because it was embarrassing. 

Don't worry if that makes your kid ignorant.  Don't worry if it is a lie.  It will make you properly believe that the founding fathers were not complex people who made mistakes.  It is tea party ideology pure, and that matters to the extremists much more than facts; that is how you can tell they are extremists.  You can tell because this sort of thing makes sense to them, is acceptable to them, is desirable to them.  Don't worry if it makes your child less competitive; all that matters is that they are taught to believe that the United States is the greatest nation in the world, that it never makes mistakes, that it is never wrong -- not even for having slavery --and that if it IS wrong, ever, the solution is to simply LIE about it.  Make stuff up that you like better, because liking it matters more to you if you are a tea partier or other right wing extremist, than the truth does. 

The Wall Street Journal wrote - (note, bold and large type are my emphasis - DG): 

Tennessee Tea Party Wants Schools to Be Nicer to Founding Fathers

The late comedian George Carlin used to say America was built on a double standard: “This country was founded by slave owners who wanted to be free.”
We wonder how his joke would have sat with members of Tennessee’s tea party, which just presented state legislators with five priorities for action, including amending state laws governing school curriculums to change textbook selection so that “no portrayal of minority experience in the history which actually occurred shall obscure the experience or contributions of the Founding Fathers,” the Memphis Commercial Appeal reported.
Hal Rounds, an attorney and a spokesman for the group, said the goal is to address “an awful lot of made-up criticism about, for instance, the founders intruding on the Indians or having slaves or being hypocrites in one way or another,” according to the Commercial Appeal.
“Neglect and outright ill will have distorted the teaching of the history and character of the United States. We seek to compel the teaching of students in Tennessee the truth regarding the history of our nation and the nature of its government,” according to materials the activists distributed.
Critics say the activists’ search for truth is really an attempt at lies.
Information about the founders owning slaves and displacing Native Americans “is well documented and acknowledged by professional historians and should not be censored,” according to Addicting Info, a website dedicated to discrediting what it sees as right-wing propaganda. “Hiding knowledge is tantamount to lying and that’s what the Tea Party wants our teachers to do.”
What the group is asking is not unprecedented. In 2010, the Texas State Board of Education adopted controversial textbook standards that stress the Christian influence of the nation’s founding fathers and give more weight to conservative groups and personalities throughout history.
Those moves have been criticized as a departure from generally accepted historical teachings and a threat to the apolitical nature of academic standards.

The Tea Party doesn't just want to dumb down history, to turn it into propaganda; it wants to dumb down and lie about everything.  Science, Economics, and judging by what I've seen from Republican math, that branch of education won't retain it's integrity very long either.  It's not just Tennessee; our own Michele Bachmann, of Iowa, and occasionally Minnesota, promotes the same lies and stupidity.  She's said things about slavery that were blatantly not true; she has made claims for science relating to global warming that were blatantly false.  Her views on economic topics are tragically ill-informed, and often outright dishonest - stupidly so, because she gets busted doing it, and still does so over and over again.  Why make the same mistakes? Because those errors appeal to her Tea Party base.

MODERATE is not a dirty word.  COMPROMISE is not a dirty word.  TAXES is not a dirty word. GOVERNMENT is not a dirty word.  Because I became tired of the extremists treating politics as their own inmate run asylum, I decided this year it is time for the center to regroup, and to push back against extremists.  It is in that context that I republish the FactCheck.org report on Tea Party activities. 

What makes this different than other lies and exaggerations that are committed routinely during election years is the money behind it.  This year ALL of the candidates running on the right are some version of extremists; this year more than ever before in my memory, there is no real selection from which to choose that represent the rest of the right that are not extremists. 

But most of all what makes this year different is the money.  It is the same big money and special interest groups that are behind Dick Armey and his astro-turf Tea Partiers that are running the media blitz in the campaigns.  Our elections are being dominated by a few special interests, the same people who lie to us and rip us off by how they BUY our politicians, especially those on the right who they buy wholesale, that is corrupting our political process, and is ruining our nation.  They have taken routine political lies and distortions, and turned them into world class Propaganda, to benefit themselves, to buy and sell us mere citizens who vote.

From Business Insider:

Super-PACs Bought 91 Percent Of The Political Ads That Ran In Alabama and Mississippi This Month

Michael Brendan Dougherty
March 13, 2012

Whoa!
Super-PACs are doing almost all the work of political advertising in this campaign season.
Greg Giroux of Bloomberg reports that these organizations which can take unlimited political donations, have been responsible for nearly every political ad in the two states having Republican primaries today.
So-called Super-PACs supplied 91 percent of the 5,592 campaign ads that aired on broadcast television stations in the two states in the past month, according to data from New York- based Kantar Media’s CMAG, which tracks advertising.
That's a ton!
It's obvious at this point that Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, who both have trouble doing traditional fundraising, have been relying on the Super-PACs aligned with them.
But Romney is benefiting from the spending almost just as much:
Restore Our Future, a super-PAC backing Romney, aired ads 2,098 times in Alabama through March 11, compared with 279 spots from Romney’s campaign, according to CMAG.
Again- that's nearly a 9-1 ratio. We're really in a new political environment.

With that kind of media boost behind it, manipulation of our political process is easy for the wealthy individuals and corporate entities that are being so successful at controlling it, at diluting and diminishing the role of the individual by controlling the preponderance of what they see and hear about political issues and candidates.
What is so exemplary about fact checking is that it allows people to push back against the propaganda - from all sides - and to try to drown out the lies with facts.  It is only when we operate from facts that we can find solutions, by being reality based.  It is only when we operate from facts, reliable and objective facts, that we can hope to bridge ideology differences, and find common ground.   Facts are for moderates; lies and half-lies are for extremists - and for the crooks who manipulate and use them.  That is because facts, fair, objective, in-context facts don't work for crooks and extremists.  They don't like them.

Look at what the Tea Party, already viewed with worse disapproval than the rest of the Republicans - which is significantly worse than Democrats and Independents - is doing to their own more moderate political figures this election.  They are trying to drive them out, leaving ONLY the extremists on the right.  The 'Big Tent' Party has become more of a straight jacket.

Note the phrase I've emphasized - TOO MODERATE.
From FactCheck.org:

Summary
Tea party-aligned FreedomWorks for America has launched campaigns against several Republicans whom it deems too moderate, including Senate veterans Orrin Hatch and Richard Lugar. But some of the group’s claims miss the mark.
A TV ad targeting Hatch claims the six-term Utah senator “has racked up half of our nation’s debt.” It’s true that Hatch voted 16 times to raise the debt ceiling a total of $7.5 trillion, but he didn’t support all of the deficit spending that caused the debt. In fact, he has championed a proposed balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, and three conservative watchdog groups grade his fiscal performance over his 35 years in the Senate as anywhere from middling to excellent.
The group also claims Hatch “gave away your family’s money for bailouts to Wall Street bankers.” It’s true that Hatch voted for TARP, but the part that went to bail out Wall Street bankers has actually turned a profit for American taxpayers.
A radio ad claims that in 2010 Hatch was “the third-highest earmarker of all 535 people in Congress.” According to the tallies by the most frequently cited earmark group, Taxpayers for Common Sense, however, Hatch ranked in the middle of the earmarking pack from 2008 to 2010, and in 2010 was 28th highest among the nation’s 100 senators.
A TV ad portrays Lugar as “Team Obama’s favorite senator” even though the Indiana Republican has voted against some of Obama’s signature pieces of legislation, including the health care law, and has voted with the Republican Party 90 percent of the time since the start of the current Congress, according to The Washington Post.
A Web video claims that Senate candidate David Dewhurst, who is the lieutenant governor of Texas, “pushed for a tax that would cost 40,000 Texas jobs.” The bill’s impact on jobs was a matter of dispute. The state comptroller projected the legislation — which also sharply reduced property taxes — would have created 60,000 jobs over 10 years.
That same video also says “state spending increased by billions” under Dewhurst. It’s true spending has risen, but so has inflation and the state’s population. The fact is that Texas spends less per person in inflation-adjusted dollars now than it did before Dewhurst took office. 

We have crossed a line, a Rubicon, from ordinary smaller political lies and exaggerations to a far larger, far more calculated, far more manipulative and exploitive kind of lie. Our politics are no longer about the ordinary untruths and nastiness; we are now being treated to large scale deliberate propaganda.  Getting rid of moderates, people who might not rubber stamp the most extreme legislation of special interests, is essential to their success, and to our defeat as individuals and citizens.

$ BUY-PARTISAN $, Bought and Paid for; We Need the Volcker Rule, We Need It NOW, We Need It Badly.

I grew up around the investment banking world. I am well aware of how dirty, and how ruthless it can be, and that there are also some very intelligent and honest, moral people in the business as well. There is an intense and inherent conflict between the two, one I have seen play out many times.

This is not one of those I know personally, but this one is playing out very publicly.

The very next time you hear a right wing politician explain to you in that patronizing smug tone they use how important it is to repeal, reduce and remove regulations to help business --- remember THIS is EXACTLY the dishonest kinds of business they have in mind. THIS is what lack of regulation and enforcement does. THIS is why people like Romney are among the wealthy 1%, as are so many of his friends. THIS is why there IS a 1% and a 99% --- an uneven, unequal, and unfair playing field.

EXACTLY THIS kind of unregulated and dishonest kind of business is done every day, and you and I and everyone else pays for it; it extracts money out of our pockets, making us poorer, and ruining the middle class as a vibrant and viable demographic of people.

Any political figure who tells you we need LESS regulation is lying to you, ripping you off, selling you out, cheating you, and trying to make it legal, or at the very least, easier for them to do.

The right is owned, largely, lock stock and barrel, including the tea party that promotes this, and parts of the left and center aren't much better. Where they are not crooked, the tea party is simply economically ignorant as hell. This is, if anything, an understatement of the situation.

Our country, our survival, depends on throwing out the crooks and liars and cheats and thieves, and those who contrive to do so under cover of legal activity - even when it isn't REALLY all that legal if it were regulated fairly and effectively - are the worst of the bunch, they are the crooks who appear to be respectable, the wolves in suits and tuxedoes rather than sheeps clothing.

At least with a street hustler, the shell game uses real shells; with the white collar crooked dealer, they use shell companies and other means to swindle you out of your cash, using specialized and specific knowledge that even savvy investors can't match.

There is a difference between failing after honest effort; too often it is gradually failing, gradually losing ground, not for honest failure but because of dishonest success. We need and deserve fairness for our effort, and we do not have it, and are being obstructed from obtaining it.

Look at the positions of your members of Congress, and do NOT accept the bullshit about less regulation, not from ANY OF THEM. It has only been a few years since the 'We Don't Need No Steenking Regulation' , a parody of the famous line of movie dialog from The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, that goes, approximately, " Badges?We don't need no stinking badges'. That would be the same group of politicians that brought us debt plucked from the jaws of surplus, with the equally ill-advised and greedy "Deficits don't matter."
  
From Think Progress:

A Goldman Sachs Insider Speaks

Mar 14, 2012
By ThinkProgress War Room
Epic Resignation Letter Underscores Need for Tougher Rules on Wall Street

This morning, a now-former Goldman Sachs executive, Greg Smith, published a truly epic resignation letter in the New York Times. Smith wrote that he resigned from Goldman due to its “toxic and destructive” environment which included managing directors referring to their own clients as “muppets.” The entire letter is worth a read, but here’s the key part:

Today is my last day at Goldman Sachs. After almost 12 years at the firm — first as a summer intern while at Stanford, then in New York for 10 years, and now in London — I believe I have worked here long enough to understand the trajectory of its culture, its people and its identity. And I can honestly say that the environment now is as toxic and destructive as I have ever seen it. To put the problem in the simplest terms, the interests of the client continue to be sidelined in the way the firm operates and thinks about making money…It makes me ill how callously people talk about ripping their clients off. Over the last 12 months I have seen five different managing directors refer to their own clients as “muppets,” sometimes over internal e-mail….These days, the most common question I get from junior analysts about derivatives is, “How much money did we make off the client?”

Smith also described how Goldman’s thirst for profits at all costs developed:

How did we get here? The firm changed the way it thought about leadership. Leadership used to be about ideas, setting an example and doing the right thing. Today, if you make enough money for the firm…you will be promoted into a position of influence. What are three quick ways to become a leader? a) Execute on the firm’s “axes,” which is Goldman-speak for persuading your clients to invest in the stocks or other products that we are trying to get rid of because they are not seen as having a lot of potential profit. b) “Hunt Elephants.” In English: get your clients — some of whom are sophisticated, and some of whom aren’t — to trade whatever will bring the biggest profit to Goldman. Call me old-fashioned, but I don’t like selling my clients a product that is wrong for them. c) Find yourself sitting in a seat where your job is to trade any illiquid, opaque product with a three-letter acronym.

Perhaps unintentionally, Smith’s editorial made a compelling case for the Volcker Rule, an element of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act that would prohibit proprietary trading at federally-backstopped institutions. Banks like Goldman, which made billions of dollars by making “shitty deals” that sold mortgage-backed securities and other complex derivative products to unwitting customers then turned to taxpayers for a bailout when too many of those deals went sour, would no longer be able to make those trades without giving up access to the Federal Reserve’s emergency lending and the FDIC’s backing. (Remember, Goldman converted into a bank holding company at the height of the financial crisis, in order to access the Fed’s emergency lending programs.) While Goldman offered an official response, it also appears to be launching a behind-the-scenes smear campaign against Smith as well.

Applaud this whistleblower; he took chances, and is running very real risks to tell this truth.