But, it seems, nothing prevents super PACs from coordinating their fundraising activities with each other. And this comes with the blessing of the Democratic fundraiser-in-chief.

From a report by Peter Stone of the Center for Public Integrity comes this tidbit:

Five Democratic super PACs are reaching out to party mega-donors, in a fledgling effort seeking $1 million to $10 million contributions, now that President Barack Obama has blessed the outside spending group working to get him re-elected.

And the reason? Stone reported in January that Democratic super PACs and nonprofits, formed last year, had only raised about $19 million.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics:

As of February 09, 2012, 314 groups organized as Super PACs have reported total receipts of $98,650,993 and total independent expenditures of $46,331,184 in the 2012 cycle.

In terms of money raised, the list of top 10 super PACs has five liberal groups and five conservative groups. But the conservative super PACs have a nearly 5:1 fundraising advantage — about $60 million to just more than $17 million.
The Dems are falling behind. So fundraising coordination may raising the level of disgust and revulsion at how national campaigns are run.

From Stone’s report:

Besides Priorities USA Action, the other Democratic groups involved in the joint committee talks include Majority PAC, which is focused on the Senate, and House Majority PAC, which is House-focused. The other two super PACs are American Bridge 21st Century, an opposition research entity that helps the other PACs, and America Votes, a get-out-the-vote operation for Democrats.

Economies of scale breed efficiencies in politics, too. Any quest for political power requires capturing the House (House Majority PAC), capturing the Senate (Majority PAC), putting or retaining the party leader in the White House (Priorities USA PAC), finding out the dirt on the other guys for the negative ads (American Bridge 21st Century), and getting out the vote (America Votes).

Coordination of fundraising, methinks, is about persuasion. The Democrats believe the party’s traditional big donors have not written enough and sufficiently large checks.

Again, from Stone’s report:

Other top Democratic fundraisers say that a joint fundraising entity is likely and stress that the White House’s abrupt shift on super PACs — which came Monday in a conference call to leading donors and fundraisers with campaign manager Jim Messina — could help prod large donors to write seven-figure checks.

Democratic fundraisers are hoping that several major donors such as Hollywood mogul Jeffrey Katzenberg and Chicago media executive Fred Eychaner, both of whom have already written large checks to Priorities USA Action, will pony up considerably more to a joint committee.

Katzenberg has donated $2 million to Priorities USA Action, the super PAC that Burton and ex-White House aide Sean Sweeney created, and Eychaner, an old friend of Obama’s, has chipped in $500,000 to the same PAC.

“There are donors who have expressed interest in a unified effort,” said Harold Ickes, president of Priorities USA Action, who is also a veteran Democratic fundraiser and a lobbyist with strong union ties. “A unified effort makes an enormous amount of sense and is likely to result in more money being raised.” [emphasis added]

Once again, just as you believe you’ve seen the worst in big-money politics, the bar is raised lowered to new depths of miasmatic influence.

To take the most curmudgeonly one first, if Killer Whales have legal rights comparable to those of humans (or at least natural born US citizens), do they have legal responsibilities as well—and can Tilikum thus be prosecuted for murder or manslaughter for the death of Sea World trainer Dawn Brancheau? Or will his plea be self-defense?

That’s stretching it, obviously, but one of the interesting questions posed by this case—much like the general questions that arise when we talk about “animal minds”—is where is the dividing line? This question came up repeatedly in the 1970s and 1980s with reference to all of the chimp/language studies, around which the linguistics and psychology community was sharply polarized until everyone got bored and forgot about the chimps and moved on to the more ivory-towerish questions posed by Artificial Intelligence instead. Then there’s John Lilly’s work, which galvanized a lot of people (including me) by being tantalizing, but never as much as Lilly thought it was, and Lou Herman’s work, which was a lot more detailed and orderly, but also a lot more cautious. But that these are animals with minds is no longer in question.

PETA, I have to say, has a point here. A number of observers and even some scientists have, over the decades, questioned the appropriateness of keeping dolphins and whales penned up. I remember some absolutely horrible facilities from the 1970s around Tampa where dolphins were kept in tanks not much larger than a bathtub, and a comparison to human solitary confinement in a small dark cell designed for sensory deprivation would not be unjustified. And one could argue that Sea World’s facilities, while spacious, aren’t really designed to avoid stress. In addition, orcas and dolphins are smart, like chimps and some other primates—whether they’re as smart as people are isn’t really the appropriate question. But they do seem to be smart enough to cause a great deal of head-scratching and revisions to the kinds of assumptions made forty or fifty years ago about the question of animal intelligence. This knowledge has been hard earned, by both humans and dolphins (which Killer Whales actually are, by the way—they’re a big species of dolphin). Let’s face it—we’re talking about Killer Whales (and dolphins, presumably, and possibly chimps and some other primates)—we’re not talking about anteaters, or bats, or lizards. And even if we’re not smart enough ourselves to articulate why this is, we sort of know that it’s true.

And yet, and yet…once past the obvious quandary posed by the fact that it’s PETA, who can be some of the most annoying people on the face of the planet when they put their minds to it, who are actually doing an interesting thing here, there are some other issues. First of all, legal systems take a while to catch up to events, yes, but there are already a bunch of laws on the books relating to the protection and preservation of marine mammals—although they don’t go so far as to define “slavery” as the equivalent of a large tank at Sea World.

That outfits like Sea World could see some financial hit here is pretty clear, but also irrelevant. Obviously, no one would go to Sea World to see a Herring show. Well, maybe they would—I don’t know. But there is also the consideration that Marine Parks, like Zoos, provide an educational function—and it’s not trivial. Well, maybe with the mass adoption of the internet over the past two decades a bit less so, but it’s hard to tell. There are genuine animal rescue programs. There are (or used to be) petting pools. These are fun places, but people learn stuff too–and while it’s one thing to see an animal on television or a computer screen, it’s another thing see see one in person–so to speak.

Additionally, one can foresee a not completely impossible scenario in which several interesting legal rulings result in Zoos and Marine Parks having to decide which animals they would keep, and what to do with those big tanks now that they had to let all the dolphins and killer whales go. Not to mention where all those very large dolphins and killer whales would actually go to. There are chimp retirement parks around the US—but there’s nothing comparable for marine mammals. Since many of these animals only know a life in captivity, it’s plausible that release in open water could be a death sentence. This is just one of the imponderables. Remember the Free Willy whale that there was a massive campaign to release, and which raised millions to send him to Iceland where he could be released? That didn’t turn out so well, although that certainly isn’t an argument that he should have stayed where he was. On the other hand, there are clearly cases where a return to open water, especially back to an original population, is not only possible, but seems like the right thing to do.

So this will be interesting to watch unfold–one of those dilemmas posed by modern life for which whatever the resolution, someone will be deeply unhappy. I don’t know enough law to know which way this might go, but the fact that the judge is even entertaining the possibility of letting this proceed probably seems like some sort of milestone–whether a good or a bad one depends, of course, on how this gets resolved.

Super PACs raised about $181 million in the last two years — with roughly half of it coming from fewer than 200 super-rich people.

That’s the news from a study called “Auctioning Democracy” jointly conducted by Demos, an organization that says it practices “advocacy to influence public debate and catalyze change,” and the U.S. Public Interest Research Group. Both groups seek to strengthen, if not compel full disclosure and expenditure rules.

Super PACs’ power stemmed from the U.S. Supreme Court’s July 2010 SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission decision. The Court’s Citizen United decision further strengthened corporations’ claim to personhood and weakened the requirement for full disclosure of donations to super PACs.

Politico’s Ken Vogel and Abby Phillip’s analysis of the study noted that

A relatively few wealthy backers are keeping super PACs afloat — and they’re saying so. Last year alone, individuals gave super PACs $63 million.

The news only worsens.

Again, from Politico:

That includes 15 people who gave $1 million or more, such as DreamWorks co-founder Jeffrey Katzenberg, who gave $2 million to Priorities USA Action, the super PAC supporting President Barack Obama, and John Paulson, a hedge fund billionaire who gave $1 million to a super PAC supporting Mitt Romney’s GOP presidential campaign, according to FEC reports.

The figures don’t even include the $10 million that Adelson and his wife gave from their personal accounts to the super PAC supporting Newt Gingrich’s GOP presidential campaign after the year-end FEC reports.

And from the Demos/USPIRG report itself:

For-profit businesses use Super PACs as an avenue to influence federal elections. 17% of the itemized funds raised by Super PACs came from for-profit businesses—more than $30 million.

Because Super PACs—unlike traditional PACs—may accept funds from nonprofits that are not required to disclose their donors, they provide a vehicle for secret funding of electoral campaigns. 6.4% of the itemized funds raised by Super PACs cannot be feasibly traced back to an original source.

Super PACs are a tool used by wealthy individuals and institutions to dominate the political process. 93% of the itemized funds raised by Super PACs from individuals in 2011 came in contributions of at least $10,000, from just twenty-three out of every 10 million people in the U.S. population.

And still more from the report:

Nearly 20% of active Super PACs20 received money from untraceable sources in 2011. Six out of the 10 Super PACs that raised the most money in 2011 received money from untraceable sources. [emphasis added]

I have nothing to add except revulsion and disgust. Is this the method the Founders imagined would provide the United States with its best and fairest political leadership?

I tend to believe that Komen’s sponsors had nothing but the best intentions in donating their time and money to supporting a worthy cause. However, I also can’t help noticing that I haven’t heard a peep out of any of them regarding the foundation’s appalling decision to de-fund Planned Parenthood, an entity that doesn’t harness its public health mission to partisan prerequisites.

I can also guarantee you that the PR groups and agencies charged with representing the brands of these sponsoring organizations have been holding their collective breath, desperately praying that this will all blow over and nobody will notice them.

Fat chance. Here’s a list of Komen’s corporate sponsors. If you patronize any of these companies, perhaps you might consider asking them what they think of Komen’s behavior over the past couple of weeks.

• 3M
• ACH Food Companies: Bake for the Cure
• Acushnet – Titleist, Pinnacle and FootJoy Worldwide
• American Airlines
• American Blue Ribbon Holdings
• Anchor Bay Entertainment
• Ansell Healthcare Products LLC
• Aquage (SalonQuest, LLC)
• Arizona AFO
• Armouth International
• Ask.com
• Avcor Healthcare Products, Inc.
• Balance Walking by Foot Solutions
• Bank of America
• BCBG MAXAZRIA and ClearVision Optical
• Belk
• Berkley Packaging Company, Inc.
• BIC USA Inc.
• Boar’s Head Provisions Co., Inc.
• BoConcept USA, Inc.
• Boots Retail USA, Inc
• Boston Proper
• Boston Warehouse
• Bowl for the Cure
• Brinker International
• Brown Shoe Company
• Caché
• California Pear Advisory Board
• Caltrate
• Canari Cyclewear
• Candy Coburn – Pink Warrior
• Caribou Coffee Company, Inc.
• Carlisle Collection, Ltd
• Caterpillar
• Century Payments
• Charlotte Motor Speedway and The Dollar General 300 Miles of Courage
• Chasing Fireflies
• Chesapeake Bay Candle Co
• Citizen Watch Company of America
• Clean Ones Corporation
• Coldwater Creek
• Collegiate Shipping Products, LLC
• Crayola
• Dallas Cowboys – I Promise
• Dell
• Deluxe Checks
• Deuce Brand
• Dots
• DS Waters
• Eggland’s Best, Inc.
• Emdeon
• Energizer
• EuroBlooms
• Evian
• Evite and Postmark
• Exercise TV
• Exhale Enterprises, Inc.
• Fable Designs, Inc
• Feld Entertainment’s Disney on Ice presents Treasure Trove and Dare to Dream
• Ford Gum
• Ford Motor Company
• Forever 21
• Fragrance Marketing Group
• Freed’s Bakery, LLC
• FUZE and Honest Tea
• Garden State Growers
• General Growth Properties
• General Mills Pink Together
• Georgia-Pacific
• Global Filtration
• Globe Electric
• Goldtouch
• Graphique de France
• GUESS
• GUESS by Marciano
• Hallmark Gold Crown Stores
• Hampshire Designers
• Hand & Nail Harmony
• Hanesbrands
• Helzberg Diamonds
• Hewlett-Packard
• Holland America Line
• HSN – Shop for the Cure®
• HUE
• Hunter Boot USA, LLC
• Igloo
• Inliten
• Interfresh, Inc.
• IOGEAR
• J. Berry Nursery
• Jason Aldean
• Jersey Mike’s Subs
• Kelly Gale Amen Design
• Kent International, Inc.
• Kentucky Oaks Ladies First
• Key Brands International
• KeyBank Foundation
• King’s Hawaiian Bakery West, Inc.
• KitchenAid
• Kobian USA, Inc.
• Koch Filter Corporation
• Koi Design
• Kyocera
• La Madeleine
• LaCroix Sparkling Water
• Ladies Professional Golf Association (LPGA)
• Liberty Mutual
• LIFE Event-The Val Skinner Foundation
• Louisville Stoneware
• Lowe’s Companies, Inc
• LPGA Golf Clinics for Women
• Magaschoni
• Major League Baseball
• McAlister’s Deli
• MD Jockey Club – Preakness
• MegaGoods, Inc.
• Merck Consumer Care
• Meredith Corporation
• Microsoft
• Mobile Edge
• Mohawk Flooring – Decorate for the Cure
• Mottega
• Mrs. Baird’s Bakeries
• Napa Valley Naturals
• Nature’s Flowers
• NBC Today Show
• Nestle Purina PetCare Company
• New Balance Athletic Shoe, Inc.
• New Global Charities
• NKOTB
• Nordstrom
• North American Licensing Company
• Not Your Daughter’s Jeans
• Nuun
• Oil Can Henry’s
• Old Navy
• On The Border – Fiesta for the Cure™
• Opal Orthodontics by Ultradent
• OPI
• Oracle Giving Commitment Grant
• Oreck
• Oregon Cherry Growers, Inc.
• Oriental Trading Company
• Otis Spunkmeyer, Inc.
• Palmer’s
• Pandora Jewelry
• Paris Accessories, Inc (MMG Corporation)
• Payless ShoeSource
• Philips Consumer Lifestyle
• Pink Ribbon Produce
• PNY
• Pottery Barn Kids
• Premium Outlets
• Pretzel Crisps
• Princess Cruises Community Foundation
• Prolacta Bioscience
• Provide Commerce
• Rally for the Cure®
• Redken
• REMAX
• RiceSelect
• Rich Products Corporation
• Robinson Home Products
• Sally Beauty Holdings, Inc.
• Samsung Electronics Europe
• Santa Barbara Design Studio and Designs by Lolita
• Sarah Fisher Racing
• Savvi Formalwear
• SELF Magazine
• ShoeDazzle
• Shoutback Concepts – Deals for the Cure
• Shuman Produce, Inc.
• Simon Malls
• SodaStream
• Specialized Bicycle Components
• Springs Global
• Stein Mart
• Stylemark, Inc.
• Sy Kessler Sales, Inc.
• Teasdale Quality Foods
• Testing
• The Hillman Group
• The Mohawk Group – Specify for a Cure
• The Republic of Tea
• Trident Seafoods Corporation
• True Religion Brand Jeans
• Tubbs Romp to Stomp Snowshoe Series
• U.S. Bobsled and Skeleton Federation
• Verbatim
• Wacoal America
• Walgreens
• Wells Lamont
• Woman Within
• Yoplait USA
• Young Dental
• Zeta Tau Alpha Fraternity
• Zumba Fitness

Thanks to Deanna Pierce for the story idea.

A few days ago I predicted on Facebook that she’d be gone within a week, but  then retracted the prediction when I learned more about the heavy-Right political leanings of the rest of the board (and the involvement of Ari Fleischer in their strategy development).

On Friday, just before America took its collective brain offline for Super Bowl Weekend, Komen offered up a fake apology that encouraged the public to believe that it had changed its mind and was going to continue funding Planned Parenthood after all, even though its release actually said nothing of the sort. It isn’t clear how many average citizens the ploy fooled, but as I explained on Saturday, it sure as hell clowned the copy desk editors of just about every major news outlet in the country.

It’s hard to say at this point what the motivation is for Handel’s exit. Maybe the board is looking at the numbers and concluding that it still hasn’t done enough to assuage the anger of its donor base, and in this case it needs a scapegoat. Or maybe Handel is taking more personal heat than she’s comfortable with and just said to hell with it.

However, what isn’t happening is a substantive reversal on the part of the Komen organization. That social conservative board, in bed with the repugnant, fork-tongued Fleischer, has not decided that it was wrong. Whatever is going on today is designed to distract the public so that they can find another means of enacting their cynical agenda.

I said last week that three things need to happen before America should even consider giving Komen a penny of its cash or a second of its support. First, Handel must go. Second, the rest of the board must go (and at this point, I think that has to include founder Nancy Brinker, who can no longer be trusted). Finally, as I said Friday, demand “that they work with non-partisan health and women’s groups to replace [Handel and the board] with leaders who will put the well being of American women first.”

One down, two to go. Women’s health should not be subjugated to the whims of a partisan agenda, and Handel’s departure, while welcomed, is nothing more than a small first step on a long, rocky road to reconciliation.

I encourage those dedicated to the cause of cancer research and women’s health generally to do a little research. In addition to Planned Parenthood, there are many other local and national organizations who can put those dollars to valuable use.

And she has remained dedicated to the monarchy and to her duties as a monarch throughout that entire period. Her life has been devoted to what she believes is service to the nation, and it stands in stark contrast to some of her Prime Ministers (Mr. Blair, for example), and to most politicians in both the UK and the US. Considering the nature of political dialogue in the US these days, one would think that devoting one’s life to public service—putting others above one’s own self—is one of the deadly sins. But here is a testament to the fact that this is not true—that public service can be a noble endeavor. She is the patron of 600 charities, and you can bet that she’s got the details down pat on each and every one of them.

She is widely loved, even by republicans who have little use for the monarchy. Her kids are a mixed bag, of course, but that may have more to do with their father than their mother. The one most like her is Anne, and one suspects that much of the public would prefer to see Anne ascend to the throne rather than Charles. This is a bit unfair to Charles, who, as I’ve mentioned before, hates modern architecture and likes local and organic farming, which makes him okay in my book, and who has been imbued with the same spirit of service by his mother as she had from her father. But it’s probably more the fact that Anne, like her mother, is a devoted public servant, and keeps it understated, whereas Charles, try as he might, just can’t stay out of the newspapers.

She loves her dogs, maintains one of the world’s finest art collections, has watched Prime Ministers come and go. When her father died and she became Queen, Stalin was still alive, Churchill was Prime Minister again, and Harry Truman was President of the United States. She apparently enjoys a good mystery, and her fondness for Scotland is legendary. She is said to be smart as a whip. An article in the Financial Times Magazine not long ago pointed out that between postcards, posters, tea towels, photographs of her, you name it, “The Queen is the most visually represented non-divine person in human history.” And this doesn’t even include the billions of stamps with her picture, including the famous Machin profile shown above. She has the love of millions. She has the respect of even more, and she deserves it. We should all work as hard as she does, and be as good at what we do as she is.

by Robert S. Becker

If he wins, risk-averse, calculating Mitt Romney won’t name a firebrand V.P. Not noxious Newt, who’s way too grandiose to play second fiddle to anyone. Thus, short of a Black Swan event, we can expect two safe national tickets, thus reversing the election pyrotechnics the last time around, with its high drama and gaseous eruptions.

Too bad for media frenzy, late-night comics, or pundits amused by theatrics — who all relish barking-mad, headline-grabbing mavericks. On pre-emptive invasions alone, will the two top dogs compete with the bellicose tirades spewing from Bush, Cheney or McCain, let alone Perry or Bachmann? Not likely, what with two, miserably failed wars slogging to a finish, reminiscent of old soldiers who never really die, just slowly fade away. How many war-fatigued voters will hoot and holler for much more than a missile strike that dissuades Iran from more rogue rhetoric?   

Even the breakthrough symbolism of 2012 suffers: no whiter-than-white Romney as first Mormon president compares with the first minority winner, especially having vanquished our most famous woman politician, then a cranky war-monger with loudmouth sidekick. If Mitt picks a running mate no more pugnacious than Joe Biden, the result would be four candidates much less likely to bare their teeth than defeated GOP zealots. In that sense, Romney’s survival is good news — if only a break from maniacal neo-con insolence. Not believing in much of anything, other than caution, distinguishes both Obama and Romney from fringe misfits displaying Grandiose Rhetoric Syndrome (GRS).

Obama has already returned to his soft power campaign patter. Okay, on Iran, he’s still pandering to the right, taking “nothing off the table.” But consider Obama explaining away this contradiction — we fire off our nukes (or do massive civilian bombing) just to take out half-done Iranian nukes to send a message? I suspect Obama would much prefer history to take his soaring, oratorical defenses of government as his legacy. His cheerleading so far outshines his legislative gains, and his business-as-usual, save Wall Street programs will be forgotten in 10 years. Is there any doubt four more Obama years means more compromise, co-operation and consensus — proof positive of his “devoutly non-ideological” purity?

Soft Talk, Big Sticks 

Indeed, did not Obama’s defeat of hawkish Clinton, then more hawkish McCain, signal some sort of turn from the hard power fiasco of Bush-Cheney? Obama’s soft power, charm offensive played well against eight years poisoned by wrong-headed saber-rattling, coercion against domestic enemies, rights violations and nakedly imperial power plays. Neo-con defenses of torture, plus permanent incarceration, hit squads, and secret prisons, put Bush-Cheney in the eternal Hard Power Hall of Shame. Only a second term reveals how Obama better reconciles his soft and hard power pledges.

Likewise, a Romney win shows enough Republicans favor his kind of mushy-ideological pragmatism, not the crude pugnacity of Gingrich or Santorum. Ron Paul, curiously enough, talks soft power abroad (well, defensive war-making) but domestically his hard-core, absolutist philosophy discourages soft power compromise: that “government is best which govern least.” Period, end of story, nothing soft about no civil rights laws.

Like our pragmatist-in-chief, Romney rarely met a high-sounding principle he couldn’t embrace. But doesn’t belief in human flexibility drive soft power — and would not a President Romney try to match Obama in the “compromise, co-operation and consensus” realm? In short, an Obama-Romney battle, however nasty, presents two detached, managerial, mediation types keen to “optimize the system,” engage big business stakeholders, and thrash out differences by slicing them in half, then again. With moderation the new wave, the no-compromise Tea Party’s wings will be clipped. Or evoke a winger third-party that assures an Obama win.

Romney: Sprint to the Middle

Certainly, five minutes after commandeering the GOP nomination, Romney tacks hard middle, dishing out reassuringly soft language to corral centrist white folks mightily offended by Obama’s wobbles (and background). And the president’s counter-strategy is no mystery: vote for me (I’m more likeable), the economy’s on the mend, and all we need is more collective action, along with Democratic control of the House and Senate.

Thus our national election pageant returns to relative normalcy, that is, to total obsession with personality, fundraising, management of sound bites, adjustment to surprises, and mangling foes without getting tainted. My rule of thumb: the less any election is about anything real (read: systemic change), the more star power, wedge issues, and propaganda dominate. Brace for an onslaught of expensive words, along with even more expensive, well-polished non-solutions (in long run costs). And the tiresome GOP talking points calling out Obama for what’s he done — ruined the country by squandering trillions with anti-business bias — plus what he’s not done: fueled job growth, served private enterprise, or sustained national prestige and security, respect for religion as well as the religion of American exceptionalism. Yawn.

Postpone the Fireworks

For a minute there, the transient Gingrich surge foreshadowed an election battle royal with Obama (in rhetoric, anyway), fraught with more sensational headlines than a morass of celebrity meltdowns. More’s the pity for those delighting in the absurd, still imagining Newt’s hard power pile driver up against the silver-tongued, soft power president teeming with help-your-neighbor, community togetherness. Can’t always get what you want . . .

Dispatching Gingrich means dumping the ultimate GOP mugger, congenitally prone towards shameless lying and knowing how to get in any opponent’s face. Newt doesn’t simply disagree with Romney, for example, but scorns him as “breathtakingly dishonest.” The president isn’t simply misguided, but a fraudulent, “food stamp president” whose “Kenyan anti-colonial” socialism dramatizes his otherness. What a joke: Obama the great enemy of empire building, the most capitalist-friendly “socialist” in history — and from Kenya, to boot.

But, alas, my Gingrich Gratification Grid (and subsequent Obama landslide) dissipates if the Florida primary follows polling, re-setting the GOP status quo. Perhaps the super-rich GOP can no longer cherrypick their no-tax-business champion, but they can defang unruly attack dogs, like Newt. Kudos to rightwing billionaires protecting their own, dividing and conquering “their” Tea Party just like they swiftboat Democrats. What a moment, to enjoy a return to relative electoral melodrama after the rancorous Bush turmoil.

Contrary to what Komen’s highly-paid PR crisis hacks and gullible headline writers at newsdesks around the nation would ask you to believe, The Susan G. Komen Foundation does NOT promise to fund Planned Parenthood in the future. They promise to let PP APPLY for grants in the future. Applying and receiving are different things, as anyone who ever applied and got rejected for a job ought to know.

…

The announcement is timed beautifully – just before Super Bowl Weekend – and they’re hoping that the combination of the pretend apology and the big game will insure that, come Monday morning, nobody will remember what they did. They can then find a reason to deny those future Planned Parenthood grant apps when nobody is paying much attention.

The title of that post wonders if the American public will be stupid enough to fall for it. Perhaps the question I should have been asking was this: why are America’s copy editors stupid enough to fall for it? Witness the headlines from some of the nation’s more prominent purveyors of journalism:

• Komen Drops Plans to Cut Planned Parenthood Grants – ABC News
• Komen reverses Planned Parenthood move – angering antiabortion activists – Philadelphia Inquirer
• Komen reverses move to cut Planned Parenthood funding – Reuters
• Komen backs off decision on funding cuts – msnbc.com
• Komen Reverses Stance on Planned Parenthood – Bloomberg
• Web Fury Spurs Komen Reversal, $3 Million for Planned Parenthood – BusinessWeek
• Cancer Group Backs Down on Cutting Off Planned Parenthood – New York Times
• Komen does about-face on cuts to Planned Parenthood – The Seattle Times
• Komen changes course on Planned Parenthood funding – Atlanta Journal Constitution
• Charity Does an About-Face – Wall Street Journal
• Komen Caves Under Pressure, Reinstates PP Funding – Forbes
• Komen Charity Reverses Planned Parenthood Grant Cuts – PBS News Hour

It’s frightening how much journalism has changed in a generation. For instance, there used to be a subtle game of cat-and-mouse between the PR hacks who wanted their clients’ stories told a certain way and the journalists who wanted the story told the right way. The pros would tune up a pitch and present it to a reporter or editor so that it put the organization in the best light. There was something of a negotiational process. And the publisher went to press with a headline (written by the copy desk) that, in their view, best summarized the nuts and bolts of the story. The PR pro/journalist relationship was a professional one, with each side understanding the demands of the other’s job. A good PR exec would work to make the reporter’s job easier by making sure the pitch was tailored to the publication’s audience and the reporter understood that the PR industry could be a helpful source of information – after all, communities have a vested interest in the businesses and private organizations that serve them, right? Reporters often resented the high salaries that PR professionals earned (and any number of reporters eventually migrated over to “the dark side” for this very reason – in fact, most of the best PR people I have known in my career followed precisely that path), but there was a productive symbiosis that worked well so long as everyone did his or her job well.

I remember the frustration on the 50th floor at 1801 California in Denver back in the late ’90s when US West would go to the press with a story and they’d spin it differently than we wanted. This happened often enough, and especially with quarterly earnings reports. The Media Relations and Investor Relations teams would hone the story to a fine edge, release it to the world, and what appeared in the papers the next day often bore very little resemblance to what we had put out. Why? Well, the PR group’s job is like that of a lawyer – represent the client’s interest, period. The reporter, on the other hand, was more like the judge, making sure that due attention was paid to the facts themselves. The audience was the jury.

That was then, and this is now. While the nature of financial reporting is such that you still get some actual journalism when earnings are released (thanks to the laws and regulations around corporate finance), the rest of the newsroom might as well be on the payroll of the PR firm doing the pitching. My colleague, Dr. Denny, spent 20 years on the copy desk and has dedicated significant energy here at S&R to explaining why our papers are increasingly populated by unedited PR copy (and to the corrosive impact this exerts on our democracy). The next time you’re thinking of buying a book on why the republic has gone to hell, save your money. Just click that link above and spend a few hours reflecting on his analysis. It’s more illuminating than just about anything on the virtual shelves at Amazon. And it’s free.

I don’t want to put words in Denny’s mouth, but I suspect had yesterday’s “reversal” story broken on a day when Denny was running the copy desk he’d have taken the time to:

• actually read the release;
• consider the established context of the story and the motivations of the players involved (no, he wouldn’t project his politics into the story, but he would be aware of the politics of the organizations because that’s at the center of the controversy);
• take a moment to think about the importance of the story to the community he served – what was their interest?
• Oh, yeah – he’d consider how much space he had and whether there were other more pressing stories.

Then he’d have edited the story according to these factors and he’d have written a headline that summarized what Komen had actually done. If, in his professional judgment, Komen was legitimately reversing field, that’s what the headline would have said. If, on the other hand, he had read the facts of the case the way I do, he would have ignored the cleverly crafted 48-point bold headline that Komen’s PR folks had put at the top of the page.

But yesterday, all across America, copy editors who are in too many cases inexperienced, poorly trained and swamped with more responsibility than one person can reasonably manage, did what they usually do. They took the headline at face value and ran the press release pretty much as-is.

And what landed in front of the public, flying under the banner of the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Seattle Times, and, the gods help us, the PBS News Hour, was unfiltered crisis PR put together by hacks paid not to think about the best interests of the public, but about the financial and political agendas of their client. Put in the terms of my courtroom analogy above, it’s like we’ve made the defense attorney the judge and jury, as well.

The lesson, sadly, is that with this story (and just about all other stories of importance to the citizens of the US), we cannot look to the press for help. They have become nothing more than the publication arm of the American public relations industry. Typists. Transcriptionists. Gofers. Foot soldiers.

So it’s up to us to read closely, to think critically, and to keep each other plugged in, using whatever tools are available, so that we can make informed decisions in the public interest. If we don’t, nobody will.

Contrary to what Komen’s highly-paid PR crisis hacks and gullible headline writers at newsdesks around the nation would ask you to believe, The Susan G. Komen Foundation does NOT promise to fund Planned Parenthood in the future. They promise to let PP APPLY for grants in the future. Applying and receiving are different things, as anyone who ever applied and got rejected for a job ought to know.

I have some experience in the world of corporate communications, folks. Lots and lots, in fact, and I’ve been inside a Fortune 150 war room when the wheels flew off. Today’s media charade is an attempt to get the heat off  as soon as possible. Textbook stuff.

The announcement is timed beautifully – just before Super Bowl Weekend – and they’re hoping that the combination of the pretend apology and the big game will insure that, come Monday morning, nobody will remember what they did. They can then find a reason to deny those future Planned Parenthood grant apps when nobody is paying much attention.

So, America – how stupid are you?

If you want Komen to do the right thing, demand that they fire their aggressively anti-abortion president and their anti-abortion board and that they work with non-partisan health and women’s groups to replace them with leaders who will put the well being of American women first.

Anything short of that plays right into the hands of those who’d hold breast cancer victims hostage to a social conservative political agenda.

We were so naive back then about purchasing power financing campaigns. How times have changed despite the continuing fiction of claims by candidates of “popular” support. Our small $201 checks no longer matter. Other people write bigger checks. Corporations can write indescribably large checks.

A report from the Campaign Finance Institute following the 2008 election refuted their claims. Looking at small donors (at least $201), mid-range donors ($201-$999) and large donors ($1,000 and up), the CFI concluded that nearly half of the 450 million donations to President Obama’s campaign committee came from the $1,000-and-up donors.

Both Obama’s and McCain’s campaign made use of bundlers (fundraisers who package checks from other donors), a practice perfected by President George W. Bush. Each raised tens of millions of dollars through the bundled checks of large donors.

Well, presidential candidates are populists no more. Super PACs, organizations freed by the Supreme Court to raise unlimited amounts of money for electioneering communications, have killed that lingering civics-class fantasy.

President Obama’s campaign continues to try to perpetuate the myth that his principal support comes from “small” donors. He has raised about half of his campaign committee’s $125 million (so far) from under-$200 donors. The man of the people, Mitt Romney, has pulled in about $56.5 million for his campaign committee — and less than 10 percent came from small donors.

But enter folks like billionaire Harold Simmons. According to the Center for Responsive Politics:

Simmons and his holding company, Contran Corp., gave $8.5 million to three super PACs, two of which support candidates for the GOP presidential nomination, in the last quarter of the year. [emphasis added]

Enter casino mogul Sheldon Adelson et familia. Without the $11 million-plus given to super PACs by him and his family, Newt Gingrich would quietly drown in the political quagmires of his own creation.

And that small-donor populist, President Obama? First, he has a network of 445 bundlers who bring in millions of dollars to his campaign committee; 61 of those brought in at least a half-million dollars each.

Second, there’s the pro-Obama super PAC Priorities USA Action. Sadly, it’s relatively poor ($4.1 million) compared with pro-Newt and pro-Mitt super PACs. But give it time: As The Boston Globe reports, “reliably liberal donors” contribute. You know the ones: Hollywood and labor unions. They’ll eventually open their wallets. But will they be needed?

“That [super PAC] hasn’t really caught on with progressive donors,’’ said Anthony Corrado, professor of government at Colby College. “There are plenty of ways to support the president without having to give to a super PAC. At this point, the expectation is the president’s campaign committee will be very well-funded, and he’s not going to need the additional resources a super PAC might generate.’’

I’m not so sure. At least 290 super PACs exist. Of the top 10 grossing super PACs, conservative-oriented ones have raised nearly $60 million; liberal-oriented ones only $17.3 million.

The CFI report defined “large” donors as those who gave $1,000 or more to formal candidate campaign committees. But even those donors were limited to a maximum total donation. Not so the donors to super PACs. Thanks to reporting by Nicholas Confessore and Michael Luo of The New York Times, we learn:

Close to 60 corporations and wealthy individuals gave checks of $100,000 or more to a “super PAC” supporting Mitt Romney in the months leading up to the Iowa caucuses, according to documents released on Tuesday, underwriting a $17 million blitz of advertising that has swamped his Republican rivals in the early primary states. [emphasis added]

The law says super PACs cannot “coordinate” with candidates’ own campaign committees. But Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert have exploded that particular legal dodge, haven’t they?

Super PACs, because they are permitted to spend half their revenues in “electioneering communications,” will have a far greater influence than candidates’ own campaign committees. In the four GOP primary contests, super PACs have spent about $44 million. And on what? Attack ads. Vicious, unrelenting, often misleading attack ads.

After just four nominating contests in January, the super PACs already account for nearly half of all television ads bought so far, according to the Wesleyan Media Project. Meanwhile, ads funded by the candidates themselves dropped 40 percent.

Super PACs are accumulating extraordinary amounts of political money. We’ve all been focused on the role of super PACs in the presidential campaigns. But as I wrote more than two years ago, billionaires rule politics beyond presidential campaigns. Think Bloomberg for mayor. Think Whitman for governor.

Super PACs will have more than enough money to pour into presidential politics. But the spending won’t end there. They’ve taken aim at backing candidates for or re-electing incumbents to Congress. Reports Dan Eggen of The Washington Post:

The powerful political groups known as super PACs, whose heavy spending has become a significant factor in the presidential race, are also beginning to play a role in congressional races around the country. The groups have set off a scramble among candidates in both parties, who are now struggling to cope with a flood of negative ads run by organizations that are outside their direct control.

Targets of super PAC money in recent months include at least two dozen pivotal House districts around the country, along with high-profile Senate races in states such as Massachusetts, Ohio, Utah and Indiana, according to Federal Election Commission data and interviews with political strategists.

Can super PAC-funded advertising in gubernatorial races be far behind?

Big political money, it seems, follows a basic Reaganomics principle: Trickle down. So much money controlled by the very wealthy, corporations, and unions now rules politics at an increasing number of levels.

If you take pride in giving the reportable $201 donation to a candidate’s campaign committee, you’re still living in a a fantasy that your gift matters.

Today, the Journal published a response by 38 climate scientists to the commentary as a letter to the editor. This continues a pattern at the Journal of refusing to grant equal space and prominence to refutations of factually deficient commentaries. But given the Journal could have simply refused to publish any response, this is something a reasonably significant accomplishment. (Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway document the Journal‘s long and iniquitous history of refusing to publish rebuttals in great detail in their book Merchants of Doubt, reviewed by S&R here)

Here are the opening lines from the rebuttal:

Do you consult your dentist on your heart condition? In science, as in any area, reputations are based on knowledge and expertise in a field, and on published, peer-reviewed work. If you need surgery, you want a highly experienced expert in the field who has done a large number of the proposed operations.

On January 27, the Wall Street Journal published an op-ed on climate change by the climate science equivalent of dentists practicing cardiology….

Please click on the link above (or this one, which could move the rebuttal behind the Journal‘s paywall at any time) to read the rest.

Actress and lesbian Cynthia Nixon has caused a firestorm in the gayosphere by saying that for her, sexual orientation was a choice.

Obviously, this view undermines the arguments of gay political orthodoxy, and gives the right wingnuts who run “gay rehabilitation prayer camps” support that they were right all along–”See Harold, I told you he was just doing it to be ornery.”  Of course, the truth is  probably like most things: The truth is somewhere in between. It may be for her, but it isn’t for most gay people.

At any rate, this becomes pretty scary when coupled with another news item from the week, news that conservatives are conservative because they are stupid.

Low-intelligence adults tend to gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, the study found.

And this isn’t some progressive spoof either, it’s a peer reviewed study based on longitudinal market research in the U.K. Now on first blush, you’d think this would bring a smile to our liberal faces. And it did. I admit it. (Although I started to send it to my conservative friends, but didn’t, since I thought it might be cruel. Probably not, since they don’t believe in science and statistics anyway.)

But the more you think about it, the bigger problem it is for us. Because if people are conservative because they’re stupid, then that’s a problem because one of our core tenets is: It’s off-limits to persecute people for things they have no control over like skin color, sexual orientation, intelligence, etc. I can see it now. At some Florida supermarket somewhere, a small boy is pointing to a seventy year-old woman wearing a halter top, hot pants and a Newt Gingrich button and his mom is saying, “Shhhhh! Don’t point, Alex. She’s a Republican, but she can’t help it.”  And this means that we have to stop mocking Rush and all right-wing positions on climate, gun control, taxes and the like, because they are too dumb to understand why their ideas are bad.

Just outside Chicago, one hospital is advertising its obesity clinic with billboards that say, “It’s a disease, not a decision.”

Romney-Santorum 2012. It’s a condition, not a choice.

by Marti Smith

“If all we feel is outrage, then we have not found a remedy.”- Jim Geringer, Governor, State of Wyoming, following Matthew Shepard’s death

Since I was a young girl and old enough to understand who I was, I have known discrimination. It hardens your heart and dampens your soul until you conquer the fear. Some don’t make it and commit suicide. To have the media, family, co-workers and friends tell jokes and make hurtful remarks is the life of a GLBT person. Unless you are a person of color, you likely don’t know what it is like to live a life of separation. As a GLBT person you are not allowed to do basic things like date, or attend the prom. You can’t hold hands or show affection in public for fear of retribution, or get relationship advice, or bring your boyfriend or girlfriend home to meet the parents. If you do, then you risk abandonment, ridicule, or even physical harm. There are churches who condemn us, and even reject us from attending. We are made to seem sub-human, and even demonic. You can’t experience the life you were born to live….freedom to choose, freedom to live, freedom to marry.

I had to leave a job I loved in my early career for fear of being found out. For the first half of my life I was closeted so I could keep my job. I lived in a small community that did not accept GLBT people as teachers, coaches or principals. After moving to Denver in the late ’80s, I sat in a hospital room with a gay friend (who was a terrific elementary teacher). He had been cornered by several young people who were trolling for a gay person to beat up. They beat him with a baseball bat and kicked him in the head until his eyes were so swollen he couldn’t see. For three days he was in a coma. I stayed with him until the swelling went down in his face and he wasn’t afraid someone would come back and kill him. He was a small man, and one of the kindest people I have ever known. His father was a Baptist preacher, and he was excommunicated from the family (with the exception of his sister). He thought moving to a bigger city would help.

The charge for nearly killing Mark was reduced to a misdemeanor. Those who beat him paid a $50 fine and were turned back out on the street to harm another day. Although animal abusers still don’t receive harsh enough punishments, you can get a lighter penalty for committing a hate crime against gays, even today. We are often treated as less than animals by those who are there to protect the innocent. That is the life we live, rather than the one God intended for us. For some of you, this is preaching to the choir. For others, I am glad you can’t relate. No one should have to understand it.

I once went shopping in a furniture store with an African-American (straight) male friend. He told me he was going to look at some cabinets on the other side of the room. He told me to pay attention to the store clerks. I followed his suggestion. They followed him everywhere he went and totally ignored me. It dawned on me in an instant. They subconsciously expected him to steal something. I tell you this story just to point out that discrimination has a lot of faces. It is doled out in jokes, behaviors and in other very scary ways. These are judgments…..very hurtful judgments that impact lives. My friend could not have put a cabinet in his pocket, and factually, Kevin is a terribly honest and trustworthy person. If I had children I would trust him to take care of them. He didn’t deserve that treatment, nor does any other person or group.

The truth of the matter….In the U.S., 75% of students have no state laws to protect them from harassment and discrimination in school based on their sexual orientation. In public high schools, 97% of students report regularly hearing homophobic remarks from their peers. Of the estimated 1.6 million homeless American youth, between 20% and 40% identify as LGBT. That is a huge number considering the overall percentage of GLBT people. One study revealed that 26% of gay teens who came out to their parents/guardians were told they must leave home; LGBT youth also leave home due to physical, sexual and emotional abuse. Also, LGBT youth report they are threatened, belittled and abused at shelters by staff as well as other residents. There are smaller numbers of GLBT people who are pedophiles by far than the straight population, and virtually none in the female lesbian ranks. (That is a statistical fact.)

Why are civil unions not enough for gay rights activists? The federal government accords 1,138 benefits and responsibilities based on marital status but not on civil union status. A few of those benefits are unpaid leave to care for an ill spouse, social security survivor benefits and spousal benefits, and the right not to testify against one’s spouse. The same man I told you about earlier (Mark) owned a home with his male partner. They had wills leaving everything to each other. My friend died of a brain tumor. His family sued for his half of the house and won. His partner was evicted and thrown out on the street until the home was sold…..by court order in Denver. If you are unlucky enough to find a GLBT hater judge, they have the power to punish the innocent. If someone you know thinks it can’t happen, it does.

More facts:

• There are already thousands of children living in gay couple households. The 2000 U. S. Census reports 33% of female same-sex couple households and 22% of male same-sex couple households already have at least one child under the age of 18 living at home.
• According to the American Psychological Association Policy Statement on Sexual Orientation, Parents, & Children, “there is no reliable evidence that homosexual orientation per se impairs psychological functioning. Second, beliefs that lesbian and gay adults are not fit parents have no empirical foundation.”
• The American Psychological Association states “research suggests that sexual identities (including gender identity, gender-role behavior, and sexual orientation) develop in much the same ways among children of lesbian mothers as they do among children of heterosexual parents.”
• There is no conclusive evidence that homosexuality is linked to one’s environment. In other words, growing up in a gay couple household will not “make” a child gay. Read Nature vs. Nurture: Born or Made Gay.

Why do we want marriage? Other than basic reasons like benefits and protections under the law, we just want the ability to live freely. I have been with my partner for 17 years. Like many of you, I knew in an instant…a holy one. I don’t want to harm anyone or take away anyone’s freedoms. I am no threat to the “sanctity of marriage” – in fact, I think we might give it more credibility, given the fact that about half of straight marriages end in divorce and many of the ones that survive are anything but sanctified. At the end of our lives I want to be able to have my partner by my side. If I am in an ICU we will have to sit in the hall because we are not “family.” Many GLBT people pass from this life alone.

I am thankful I was born the way I am. God gave me this gift so I could stop judging. I had a choice to love or hate. I chose love. Some days it is more of a challenge than others.

Below is a video from Mayors for the Freedom to Marry – a group aligned with the Freedom to Marry Campaign and featuring 80 mayors from 25 states – that explains why this courageous group of municipals leaders believes that this is not only the right thing to do, it’s the smart thing to do. I encourage you to watch the video and sign the pledge.

I also ask you to pass these links along to your friends, your family members and those in your various community and religious organizations. If you share your conviction in this initiative it means many more signatures and a greater momentum towards an important milestone in American social justice. If only GLBT people sign the petitition it will be ignored, and if the history of the struggle for equality in the US has taught us anything, it’s that, as the famous Solomon Burke song teaches: “none of us are free, one of us are chained.”

Thanks to the Mayors for the Freedom to Marry, and thank you for reading and supporting fairness for all Americans.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Yeah. This is a sweet gig. I want to stay here. In fact, I want to … move up. Be in the leadership. Be a mover and shaker. Now how am I gonna do that beyond kissing the speaker’s ass (and those of his damn deputies, too) and voting however he (or she) tells me to?

It will take money for that Republocrat to ascend higher in the House’s toadying ladder of leadership. Lots of money. And as we know, House members (and senators) have a vehicle to collect and dispense money to other House members — the leadership political action committee. A principal reason for the existence of leadership PACs to is buy friends and influence on Capitol Hill. Apparently, hard work and intelligence are insufficient.

For example, suppose our young Republocrat wants to donate money to another incumbent (or challenger identified by the National Republocratic Party as worthy of being admitted to the club) or to the national party itself. As a private citizen, she can only give the legal maximum of $2,100 to her would-be friend’s campaign committee. But if that incumbent has a leadership PAC, then she can give $5,000 per year from her leadership PAC to that PAC.

If our Republocrat’s sitting in a safe district, she can encourage donors to give to her leadership PAC instead of her re-election campaign committee. She can use the donations in the leadership PAC to make friends with others in the House — by giving $5,000 to the leadership PAC of someone she wishes to be friendly with (or buy, to be blunt). The more money in her leadership PAC, the more influence she can peddle.

As the Center for Responsive Politics notes:

By making donations to members of their party, ambitious lawmakers can use their leadership PACs to gain clout among their colleagues and boost their bids for leadership posts or committee chairmanships. Politicians also use leadership PACs to lay the groundwork for their own campaigns for higher office. And some use their PACs to hire additional staff—sometimes even their family members—and to travel around the country or eat in some of Washington’s finest restaurants. The limits on how a politician can spend leadership PAC money are not especially strict. Also, lacking a requirement that lawmakers disclose their affiliations with leadership PACs, these committees have been able to slip under the radar for years.

And big money is involved. And big donors chip in. Contributions to politicians’ leadership PACs reported to the Federal Elections Commission from 1990 and into the 2012 election cycle total $286,110,856. Only about $3.5 million came from individuals; $268,358,732 came from other PACs. On the Hill, outside PACs feed leadership PACs at five grand a clip. That adds up over time.

Thanks to the Supreme Court’s Citizen United decision of two years ago, so-called super PACs are getting most of the media attention — even though super PACs were created as a result of the Court’s July 2010 SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission decision. Leadership PACs have been overlooked because, it appears, super PACs raise (and hide) a helluva lot more money. But leadership PACs, over time, have raised enormous amounts of moolah.

Super PACs differ from leadership PACs, according to the center. Such PACs, also known as independent-expenditure committees, may raise as much money as they want. No limitation are placed on the size of donation a contributor may make. Super PACs may not donate money directly to political candidates. But they can spend as much money as they want to “overtly advocate for or against political candidates.” According to the center, at least “290 groups organized as Super PACs have reported total receipts of $32,008,813 and total expenditures of $34,335,760 in the 2012 cycle.” (See the list here.)

The 2012 election cycle is far from over, with the greatest amount of spending yet to come. But in a little more than a year and a half, super PACs have pulled in more than $32 billion. You’ve seen how that money has been used in advertising to support or, more often, attack presidential candidates in the primaries so far. Florida’s a pricey state for ad buys, so super PACs will raise even more and spend even more.

So far, in the 2012 election cycle, leadership PACs have pulled in nearly $12 million, a third of the identified super PAC donations. But in the 2010 election cycle, the leadership PACs hauled in more than $52 million. That’s a lot of $5,000 checks.

The current speaker of the House, Rep. John Boehner, wrote plenty of them. In fact, in 2006, when he wanted Republicans to vote for a free-trade agreement with Oman (Oman? Really?), he had already “invested” in the vote of my then-congressman. Boehner’s leadership PAC, the Freedom Project, gave my then-House rep $10,000 — $5,000 in the 2004 election cycle and $5,000 in 2006. From a post I wrote in 2006:

In fact, Rep. Boehner’s leadership PAC since 1997 has disbursed more than 530 checks worth $5,000 each to House incumbents and GOP House candidates. That’s more than $2.6 million of largesse spread among the faithful. The PAC shipped off more than $189,000 in 64 smaller checks. And there’s the $15,000 sent each year since 2002 to the National Republican Campaign Committee.

Here’s the list of recipients of checks from the Freedom Project.)

Boehner is speaker in significant measure because he spread the wealth and, in turn, received political support as he climbed higher in the House. (But apparently he didn’t spread enough to the tea party conservatives swept into the House in 2010. They’ve balked several times at his leadership. And they’re learning how to play the PAC game.) That’s the primary role of leadership PACs: financially support other incumbents and candidates in return for political support later.

You’ll read a great deal in coming months about super PACs and their big-money influence on the 2012 elections. But over the long term, political power in Congress is heavily influenced by leadership PACs and how they’re used.

Oh, by the way, leadership PACs are regulated — but loosely. Funds in leadership PACs cannot be allocated to personal use. But after a senator or representative leaves Congress, that prohibition no longer applies.

Here’s the lede from a November 2010 New York Times story by Eric Lipton about abuses of leadership PACs:

Henry Bonilla, a Texas Republican and former member of Congress, has tapped into his political piggy bank to fly around the United States, eat at some of San Antonio’s finest restaurants and to cover bills at luxury hotels like The Breakers in Palm Beach, Fla. [emphasis added]

And later in the story:

Former members are largely free to spend the money left over in their political action committees however they choose. [emphasis added]

Apparently, you can take it with you.

Nice gig, eh?

I predicted Romney to win and I am sticking to it. Let the kids at the Tea Party sleepover have their fun, sooner or later the grown ups are going to come upstairs, turn off the music, make everyone get back into bed and cut out the lights, just like they always do. Post-Eisenhower, the Republican Party has worked on the principle that the great unwashed should just shut up and do what their betters tell them to do. And when push comes to shove, they will.

So what do the results really tell us?

Three things, I think.

First, the average IQ of any large group of randomly selected people should be a hundred, but it may be quite a bit lower than that in South Carolina. What do SC Republicans want? Progress on the economy, abortion, gay marriage? Yeah, right. I am from South Carolina. What they really want is an electoral lynching. It’s called the White House for a reason, they believe.

To achieve that, they should vote for the most moderate candidate available. That’s not poli-wonk talk, it’s real science, what game theorists call the “ice cream stand on the beach” solution. (For real.) If you’re putting a new ice cream stand on a beach that already has one, where is the best place to put it? The other end of the beach? Nope, as close the existing stand as you can get, but closer to the middle. For the non-mathemeticians, that means the candidate most likely to beat Obama is a moderate. Nominating someone who is not only not centered, but instead of being on the beach may be up on the boardwalk stealing bicycles, is asinine.

Unless we assume this is some uber-sophisticated tactic on their part to prolong the selection process long enough to convince the party elite to draft Mitch the Bitch or Bush 3.0 or the like, Gingrich makes no sense at all.

Second, be they fools or be they savants, they are all a bunch of hypocrites. The exit polls say that people for whom morals and religion were paramount overwhelmingly went for Newt instead of devout and untarnished candidates like Santorum and Romney. Newt? Really? The voters of South Carolina are saying one thing and doing another, and all I can say to that is “Thank God.” (Were She to exist.)

As memory serves, it was Asimov who said, “Men always cheat their gods,” and thankfully that’s true. As bad as the mullahs are, they would be worse without that secret stash of Johnnie Walker locked in the desk. And can you imagine how ill-tempered the Christian right would be if they weren’t having sex with prostitutes in airport toilets? I, for one, applaud their hypocrisy, if the alternative is they actually act on what they purport to believe. And I am delighted to have more proof of that hypocrisy, were more needed. (Yes, Vitter, I am talking to you.)

Third, Woody Guthrie is spinning in his populist grave.

Populism is the politics of envy. For the most part, American populism, from Andy Jackson to Huey P. Long, was about envy of the rich. The new Tea Party populism, though, is about envy of the poor. The white middle class envies the non-white lower class, whom they believe enjoys a life of tax-payer funded leisure while whites have to go to work every morning. The white lower class envies and resents the non-white lower class, whom they percieve has been redistributed income, status, and opportunities that would have gone to the whites in the past. Because economic growth is not a zero sum game it’s not exactly true, but no matter–they believe it. It’s populism, but of a particularly nasty sort, and different from traditional American populism.

This populism of the Tea Party may be new and fresh to America, but it’s not new and fresh. Check with Americans who have immigrated from third world hellholes, because they have seen this poor-bashing for decades. That form of populism is the stock in trade of third world despots like the Bhuttos and the Ghaddaffis, who purport to be friends of the poor while looting their countries. They get by with it because they are so adroit at playing the various factions off against each other.

I have to admit all it is fun to watch all this writhing about in pain by the Republicans, but I don’t think it changes much. To quote Kurt Vonnegut, “Anyone who has come this far on a fool’s errand, owes it to the honor of those fools to complete that errand,” and for Romney, the errand started when he was a very young boy and his father missed out on his presidential aspiration. I can’t see him giving up and quitting now, and over the long haul he’s still got the cash to grind it out.