The GOP’s Koch Brothers Appreciation Act

Under the Republican leadership of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce there is a whole new approach to the environment and the role of government to protect citizens from recalcitrant polluters. The new GOP majority has unabashedly sold out to the big energy corporations by accepting more than a quarter of a million dollars from those whom they are supposed to be regulating.


The corporate bribery appears to have paid off. Currently under consideration is what the GOP have christened the “Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011.” You may wonder what this legislation does to prevent taxation on energy. Well, here is the text of the actual bill:

Providing for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 910) to amend the Clean Air Act to prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from promulgating any regulation concerning, taking action relating to, or taking into consideration the emission of a greenhouse gas to address climate change, and for other purposes.

You read that right. The bill prohibits the Environmental Protection Agency from protecting the environment. And other than the title, the word “tax” does not appear at all in the bill. This legislative lunacy has inspired a couple of obviously frustrated Democratic congressmen to offer amendments that seek to improve at least the official title of the bill.

Jared Polis of Colorado submitted an amendment to change the title to “The Dirty Air Act of 2011.” Gerry Connolly of Virginia was somewhat more industrious. He submitted eight amendments including “The Koch Brothers Appreciation Act,” “The Protecting Americans from Polar Bears Act,” and “The Head in the Sand Act.”

Some people may think that these sort of pranks mock the serious responsibilities of the institution. But the truth is that these amendments are no more ridiculous than the title as written in the bill’s original language. And nothing is more ridiculous the actual intent of the bill. This is a great way to illustrate that it’s the GOP who are a joke.

7 Things To Do When Right-Wingers Attack

Politics is a dirty business. Its history contains some of the most unsavory and slanderous conduct imaginable. In recent years there seems to have been an escalation by conservative activists who were never able to accept the election of Barack Obama to the presidency of the United States.

[This is a re-post of an article I wrote for Alternet]

From Inauguration Day, when Fox News immediately began speculating that Obama was illegitimate because Supreme Court Justice John Roberts flubbed the oath of office, to the present where we see the president still shirking off allegations of treasonous sympathies for Muslim terrorists, America’s right-wingers have orchestrated an aggressive assault on those they consider to be their enemies. Well, we don’t have to lie down and take it. Here are some of the ways we can fight back:

1. Trust, No. Verify, Yes: The easiest way to smack down a conservative is to do some cursory research. In all likelihood whatever they are using against you is filled with errors or is entirely made up. It shouldn’t be too difficult to expose their attacks as vacant smear tactics. Mike Huckabee’s recent assertion that President Obama holds views that are different than the average American due to his “upbringing in Kenya” is a perfect example of right-wing disinformation. It was quickly debunked, which led Huckabee to offer even more ludicrous falsehoods to cover his original deceit. We are fortunate to be blessed with opponents who are, more often than not, idiots. Let’s exploit that good fortune.

Sean Hannity

2. Mock Treatment: When you’re dealing with the sort of people who vote for former witches for the senate there is sometimes little you can do other than laugh. And while the antics of right-wingers are often indistinguishable from satire, it is still an effective response to their attacks. The latest inanity from Sarah Palin can be addressed at length in a point-by-point rebuttal or a brief skit by Tiny Fey. Which do you think has a more enduring impact?

3. Talk Back: The purpose of most attacks from the right is to influence public opinion, and eventually, social behavior and legislation. They must not be left alone on that field of battle. A concerted effort should be made to inform the media that the attacks are baseless. That means letters to the editor, op-eds, call-ins to radio shows, and speaking out at public forums. The PR response is critical. The latest, loudest assertion is often the one most remembered. Don’t let it be a Tea Partier.

4. Consider the Source: Attacks from the right often emanate from notoriously disreputable characters whose grousing is better ignored. Their hypocrisy is legendary. Why should we care when the corpulent Rush Limbaugh calls Michael Moore fat? And the next time Ann Coulter proposes that the way to deal with violent extremism (or in her view, with anyone of the Muslim faith) is to “invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity,” we ought not to pay attention to the violent extremism she espouses. This isn’t giving up. It’s tactical disregard, but it should only be employed against irrelevant figures whose opinions are widely ignored anyway. I know, that’s a pretty big chunk of the rightosphere.

5. Hit the Streets: Nothing has been more illustrative of the power ordinary people have to effect change than the determined and courageous example set by the people of Wisconsin. They have been relentless in asserting their rights to speak, assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances. Sadly, their governor and his GOP minions have resisted the will of the people — so far. But this battle is far from over. And the example set by Wisconsin Democrats, unions and citizens, has inspired a national movement in support of working families and the notion that tough economic times require sacrifices from everyone, including wealthy individuals and corporations. This movement has flourished despite scant attention from the conventional media. That’s the power of numbers and a public presence.

6. Sue the Bastards: This action can only be undertaken by actual victims of right-wing attacks, but it is effective and underutilized. Recently lawsuits have been been filed by Shirley Sherrod (against Andrew Breitbart) and Juan Carlos Vera (against James O’Keefe). These suits can serve as notice that people will not tolerate being slandered or otherwise harmed by spurious attacks. They can also preoccupy conservative evildoers who will have to spend both time and money on their defense. The publicity from these suits can help to advance progressive activism, particularly if they are successful. But just keeping their dastardly exploits in the news has a beneficial effect all its own. It would be great to see more of this from aggrieved parties like Van Jones and George Soros.

7. Get Up, Stand Up! Last, but not least, it is imperative that we coalesce into a culture of pride and conviction for the ideals we cherish. We must cease to buckle under pressure from rightist factions who will oppose us even after we make every concession they demand. Has the criticism of the White House declined since the departure of Van Jones? Did the opposition relent after we removed language from the health care bill that was falsely lambasted as “death panels?” Has there been any let-up on charges of over-taxation and socialism from Tea Partiers despite the extension of Bush-era tax relief for the rich? Of course not. So why on earth would we continue to try to appease an opponent who is insatiable and resistant to compromise?

Our side has to stop firing people just because they were subjects of criticism from the right. That just empowers the other side and highlights our weaknesses. It’s long past time for us to stand up for ourselves and our own. And when we get hit, as we will, we need to hit back. We have a moral obligation to stand up for the principles that we share with the majority of the American people. And now we must augment that with the will to advance those principles even in the face of dishonest, dirty dealing by our opponents.

One more thing: Have fun! There is no reason we can’t pursue our goals with a positive demeanor that reflects our hopes and aspirations for a country that cares about its people and the people of the world.

FOR SALE: Republican National Committee

If you’re in the market for an antique political party that, despite having a great deal of wear, has had millions of dollars invested in it by its previous owners, you’re in luck:

“The Republican National Committee is considering sanctioning the GOP presidential primary debates and then selling the broadcast rights to news outlets.”

This is wrong on so many levels. First of all, it reduces the electoral process to a consumer product. If you thought that campaigning was like selling soap before, you aint seen nothin’ yet.

This repulsively misguided proposal turns the debates into profit centers for the party. How exactly do they market them? Do they sell exclusive rights to media organizations they favor? Do they license the program to all takers who will pay the fee? Do they post it on eBay and sell to the highest bidder? Perhaps they could go the infomercial route and partner with retailers who can sell campaign buttons, t-shirts, and commemorative plates during the breaks.

Would the fee include the right to designate debate moderators? Would the licensee be able to write the questions for the candidates? What other privileges come with the broadcast rights? Could the they compel the candidates to do promotions? Could they program the debate as the lead-in to a their new Shelley Long sitcom or CSI: DC?

How would the party and the broadcaster account for the payment? Would it be considered a political donation? If so, there are Federal Election Commission limits as to how much can be exchanged. And what’s to stop a partisan media conglomerate from offering to pay a license fee for multiple stations, papers, and Internet sites, in an effort to funnel cash into the party?

What’s next? How about “naming rights” like sports arenas? Maybe the “Citibank Republican Party” or the “GO ‘Daddy’ P.” Perhaps they could sell product placements or get the candidates to make testimonials. Burger King could give away tickets to the debate with every Whopper in a cross-promotion with what Republicans fill their stump speeches with.

Even better, why not just sell the party outright? I’m sure Rupert Murdoch would love to add it to his corporate empire that already owns notable Republican businesses like Fox News and the Wall Street Journal. Although based on their current business relationship, that may just be redundant. After all, Murdoch already employs multiple prospective GOP presidential hopefuls, as well as former House Speakers and Cabinet secretaries.

If the RNC goes through with this they will be affirming their distaste for ethics and their affinity for corruption. They will be ending once and for all any argument that they are not shills for corporate cronyism and greed. Only today’s modern, tea-stained, Republican Party could even contemplate such an asinine plan. I can’t wait to see what they come up with next.

Tea Party: Losing Ground And Desperate

Tea CrusadesThe ongoing conflict in Wisconsin between an intransigent, union-busting governor and the representatives of average, working Americans is trending consistently toward the position of the people. Despite millions of dollars of Koch Industries lobbying funds, the Republicans and union bashers are, in their own words, “losing ground.”

This is an excerpt from a recent fundraising letter sent by Tea Party Express (TPE) to supporters:

“Friends, new polls coming out in Wisconsin show that the Obama-Labor Union ad campaign against him is having an impact. Governor Walker has started losing ground…”

Actually, the old polls were showing that as well. What is new is that even reliably right-leaning pollsters like Rasmussen are now showing that Governor Scott Walker is viewed unfavorably by nearly 60% of his constituents. The despondent correspondence goes on to say that…

“If we lose in Wisconsin then Republican Governors across America will take the lesson that they should give in and capitulate, and all the progress we have seen from the tea party movement will be undone,”

Indeed. Both sides of this debate recognize the impact that the conclusion will have on similar debates across the country. It’s interesting that TPE is so concerned about a defeat in Wisconsin that they believe it will undo “all the progress” they’ve made. But what is even more interesting is that they are directing this concern to only Republican governors.

That focus is something that I have been addressing for months, and that the media needs to acknowledge: There Is No Tea Party!

When will they get this through their barnacle-encrusted skulls? There are no Tea Party candidates; no Tea Party policies; no Tea Party voters. They are all Republicans. They run as Republicans and vote for Republicans. To pretend that it is something distinct is delusional. And this isn’t just me talking, it’s…

Republican Party spokesmen:
John Boehner, House Minority Leader: There really is no difference between what Republicans believe in and what the tea party activists believe in.

Tea Party spokesmen:
Mark Skoda, Tea Party Leader: This movement is beginning to mature … not as a third party but a force to be reckoned with in the traditional party structure.

Media spokesmen:
Carl Cameron, Fox News: They plan to establish separate spin off political action committees to fund raise for candidates who back Tea Party goals and the official Republican National Committee platform.

See? Everybody agrees that there is no Tea Party. It is journalistic fraud to persist with the charade. This is especially true of Tea Party Express, which was created by the Republican consulting firm of Russo/Marsh. Sal Russo runs TPE as a revenue center for his firm, funneling most of their donations right back into his wallet. And for some inexplicable reason this is the corrupt, phony Tea Party clan that CNN has hooked up with to host a Republican (of course) presidential primary debate.

This is madness. If the press treats the Tea Party as a separate entity and gives them a voice distinct from their Republican source, they are in effect giving the GOP twice as much exposure as the Democrats. To be fair and balanced they would have to regard MoveOn.org or the SEIU as a separate party and hire their spokespeople as news analysts and feature their responses to official GOP dogma – in addition to that of actual Democrats. I don’t see that happening.

In the meantime, the Tea Party is growing noticeably more desperate. Their latest fundraising appeal is evidence of how seriously they take their declining popularity in Wisconsin and the impact of that nationwide. They have never really been a popular movement as most polls have pegged their support in the teens with pluralities having no opinion. And their views have been shown to be wildly out of touch with mainstream Americans.

The media has to be pressed to justify their misrepresentation of Tea Partiers. Either that or put me on every panel where they have a Republican posing as something that doesn’t exist.

The Republican Model Of Shared Sacrifice

In these challenging economic times it is common for a nation and its leaders to embrace a sense of community and promote the notion that we are all in this together and are expected to chip in, do our part, and make difficult compromises. The Republican Party is no exception and it has adopted its own model of “Shared Sacrifice.”


The right-wing in America is committed to reducing the deficit on the backs of the middle-class and the poor. They are all for cutting the salaries of teachers and the benefits of seniors. And the rich have to pitch in as well by accepting painful reductions in…..taxes.

That’s right, the beleaguered wealthy amongst us must loosen their belts and be prepared to get fatter and suffer ever more ostentatious privilege. This is a theme that the media adopts as they seek to sustain the position of power awarded to the elite who must surely deserve it or it would not have been granted to them by God.

In the process of dispensing these hardships, working people are castigated if they object that the contracts to which they agreed are being broken in order to pare back their lavish lifestyles. But any suggestion that the Wall Street crooks who created this recession in the first place be asked to forgo their extravagant bonuses, paid for by the people via government bailouts, is an affront to the order of business and the contractual benefits they negotiated with their executive pals.

So remember, when contemplating the value of shared sacrifice, that if you support firefighters and factory workers getting fair compensation, you’re a socialist. But if you support hedge fund managers and insurance company CEO’s getting millions in government handouts, you’re a patriot. That’s shared sacrifice in right-wing America.

The GOP’s Kiddie Curriculum For Congress

When the 112th Congress convenes on January 6, 2011, new procedural rules authored by the GOP majority will be proposed and implemented. Amongst these will be a provision that calls for the Constitution to be read aloud on the floor of the House.

Democrats are often criticized for advocating policies that will result in what Republicans derisively call a “nanny” state. But it is the Republicans who most often treat their work as child’s play. They previously implemented the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance to open each day’s business. Now they want to schedule a story hour wherein they will recite the Constitution. And it is not unworthy of notice that the incoming Speaker of the House, John Boehner, is a notorious crybaby.

This sort of behavior is generally reserved for kindergarten classes. The spectacle of grown men and women reciting in unison their obedience to a flag is downright embarrassing. And if they don’t already know what the Constitution says they probably should not have been elected in the first place. Certainly the reading will not elucidate it for them. In order to understand the Constitution it must be considered in its entirety, including amendments and a couple of hundred years of court rulings and interpretations. Would the GOP advocate reading the entire legal history of the Constitution into the record?

The Constitutional reading is paired with another new rule saying that…

“A bill or joint resolution may not be introduced unless the sponsor submits for printing in the Congressional Record a statement citing as specifically as practicable the power or powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact the bill or joint resolution.”

This is nothing but a symbolic bit of grandstanding that has no legal effect on any legislation. Only the Supreme Court can assess the constitutionality of any law. This rule requires only that a bill’s sponsor make a statement citing a constitutional provision. It does not, and can not, require that the provision actually be relevant or binding. So a member could cite the “Preamble” or the “Oath or Affirmation Clause” or the third comma in the second paragraph of Article VI. It literally doesn’t matter. Once the statement is furnished the bill can proceed and no other member can challenge it. Even if a challenge was permissible under the rule, who or what would have jurisdiction to decide whether the statement was “specific” enough without stepping on the toes of the Supreme Court? Perhaps the GOP should be required to make a statement citing the Constitutional power to enact this rule.

What’s next for the GOP? Would they like to codify “Nap Time” or “Shoe Lacing” instruction? Would they like to prohibit name-calling or running with scissors? Perhaps they could enact a rule that would result in a member being grounded for sassing the chair. If the new rules being proposed by the GOP are any indication, Congress is in for a era of strict parental supervision. And that may be the way conservatives like it, but most Americans would probably prefer that their representatives behave more like adults.

Too many Americans are embroiled in a reality show that could be called “Survivor: United States.” And the Republicans want to vote the adults off the island. Especially in these times, when so many people are undergoing severe hardships, there is a need for government to concentrate on solving problems rather than stacking blocks and coloring inside the lines. Grow up, Republicans.


[Addendum] A new report just revealed the hypocrisy of the “fiscally conscious” GOP: Republicans to Spend $1.1 Million Reciting Constitution on House Floor.

WTF? CNN And Tea Party Express Partner For GOP Debate [Updated]

CNN Tea PartyDec 17,2010 – CNN, the once dominant and comparatively respectable cable news network, seems determined to destroy whatever shreds are left of its credibility. They announced this morning that they will be partnering with the Tea Party Express for a Republican primary debate in September of 2011.

Generally when a media organization chooses to co-host a primary campaign event they go with the party apparatus or a non-partisan group like the League of Women Voters. Tea Party Express (TPE) is hardly non-partisan. TPE is a political action committee that has actively engaged in campaigning on behalf of specific candidates. They supported Sharron Angle in Nevada, Christine O’Donnell in Delaware, and Joe Miller in Alaska (all lost). They have also been vocal proponents of Sarah Palin, who is a speculative candidate for president herself and thus a possible participant in the debate. They have taken positions for or against GOP candidates based on their adherence to Tea Party dogma and helped to defeat GOP incumbents. How can they be impartial in a Republican primary debate?

CNN’s statement announcing this partnership quoted Sam Feist, CNN Political Director and Vice President of Washington-based programming, saying that…

“The Tea Party movement is a fascinating, diverse, grassroots force that already has drastically changed the country’s political landscape.”

“Undecided voters turn to CNN to educate themselves during election cycles, so it is a natural fit for CNN to provide a platform for the diverse perspectives within the Republican Party, including those of the Tea Party”

That statement ought to outrage members of the Tea Party who insist that they are not affiliated with any other party. It is a statement that reduces their views to being merely “perspectives within the Republican Party.” While TPE may not object to that characterization, I suspect that many other Tea Partiers would.

What’s more, the predominantly white organization cannot seriously be portrayed as diverse or as a “grassroots force.” They were created by Sal Russo and his Republican PR firm, Russo Marsh, and their brief history is fraught with scandal. Rival Tea Party groups were harshly critical of them for directing nearly half of the money they raised from citizen supporters to Russo’s firm. Their former spokesman, Mark Williams, was forced to resign after publishing a racially offensive article on his web site. That was a particularly embarrassing episode as the Tea Party was battling persistent allegations of racism at the time.

[Update] On the day following CNN’s announcement Williams issued a press release praising CNN for its decision to embrace Tea Party Express. In the release he declared himself to have been vindicated and noted that the CNN relationship was evidence that charges of racism against the Tea Party were unfounded.

Williams: “That a respected international, serious news organization like CNN and even the potential presidential candidates recognize that the Tea Party is anything but racist simply thrills me.” […] I feel completely vindicated, this is an absolute vindication of both the Tea Party and Mark Williams.”

This is precisely what makes CNN’s move so reprehensible. TPE can and is using this connection to whitewash their dubious reputation. CNN has to know that they are permitting themselves to be used for the political benefit of an organization that doesn’t even have the respect of their Tea Party comrades. When Williams resigned last summer, TPE was booted from the National Tea Party Federation and have never been reinstated. So how are they representative of the so-called movement?

The Tea Party’s influence has long been overstated in the media. Poll after poll shows that they are an insignificant segment of the population and that their views are wildly out of touch with the American mainstream and even the Republican Party. But if CNN were still determined to partner with a Tea Party group they should at least endeavor to find one without the repugnant baggage of TPE (an admittedly difficult task).[End Update]

It is also notable that Tea Party Express had become a fixture on Fox News. Fox provided wall to wall coverage of the TPE bus tour with reporter Griff Jenkins riding along. Perhaps Fox would have been an even more natural fit for partnering with TPE than CNN. After all, TPE was created by a Republican PR firm and Fox is the communications arm of the Republican Party. If nothing else this underscores the transparent dishonesty of portraying the Tea Party as anything other than an affiliate of the Republican Party. How else can they justify playing an official role in the GOP primary debate?

But far worse is the damage this does to CNN, an already wounded critter. This is an unprecedented partnership between a news organization and an active political action committee that has already taken sides in the debate. Would CNN ever consider partnering with MoveOn.org for a Democratic debate? I think not. And prior to this news, I would have hoped not. Now I would suggest that MoveOn give CNN a call just to see how fair and balanced they are.

[Update] What might have have prompted CNN to make this unholy alliance with a discredited and over-hyped entity? Undoubtedly CNN’s new president Ken Jautz had something to do with it. Jautz, who took the reins at CNN in September, was previously in charge of their sister network HLN. It was there that he made history by giving Glenn Beck his first job in television. In hiring Beck he praised the radio shock-jock as being “cordial,” and “non-confrontational.” That should have been a warning sign that Jautz might not be a suitable choice to run a news network. Jautz has always been more interested in ratings than journalism, and the Tea Party deal imparts a disturbing vision of the direction he intends to take CNN.[End Update]

Earlier this year ABC News tried to hire smear artist Andrew Breitbart as an election analyst. The public outcry against it (and Breitbart’s own prickly personality) resulted in Breitbart getting thrown to the curb. That should serve as an example that we can have a positive influence on these sort of decisions. Everyone who who cares about ethical media and fair elections should let CNN know that this is inappropriate and unprofessional. You can use this form on CNN’s web site to tell them that they should not be partnering with Tea Party Express or any right-wing wing PAC (or left-wing for that matter). You can also Tweet them at http://twitter.com/cnn. Use the hashtag #NoCNNTP.

Eight False Things The Public “Knows” That Just Aint So

OurFuture.org has put together a list that should be in every American’s mailbox before election day. It’s a perfect manifestation of Mark Twain’s admonition that, “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.” So here is a short list of some things the GOTea Party “knows” for sure:

1) President Obama tripled the deficit.
Reality: Bush’s last budget had a $1.416 trillion deficit. Obama’s first budget reduced that to $1.29 trillion.

2) President Obama raised taxes, which hurt the economy.
Reality: Obama cut taxes. 40% of the “stimulus” was wasted on tax cuts which only create debt, which is why it was so much less effective than it could have been.

3) President Obama bailed out the banks.
Reality: While many people conflate the “stimulus” with the bank bailouts, the bank bailouts were requested by President Bush and his Treasury Secretary, former Goldman Sachs CEO Henry Paulson. (Paulson also wanted the bailouts to be “non-reviewable by any court or any agency.”) The bailouts passed and began before the 2008 election of President Obama.

4) The stimulus didn’t work.
Reality: The stimulus worked, but was not enough. In fact, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the stimulus raised employment by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million jobs.

5) Businesses will hire if they get tax cuts.
Reality: A business hires the right number of employees to meet demand. Having extra cash does not cause a business to hire, but a business that has a demand for what it does will find the money to hire. Businesses want customers, not tax cuts.

6) Health care reform costs $1 trillion.
Reality: The health care reform reduces government deficits by $138 billion.

7) Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, is “going broke,” people live longer, fewer workers per retiree, etc.
Reality: Social Security has run a surplus since it began, has a trust fund in the trillions, is completely sound for at least 25 more years and cannot legally borrow so cannot contribute to the deficit (compare that to the military budget!) Life expectancy is only longer because fewer babies die; people who reach 65 live about the same number of years as they used to.

8‌) Government spending takes money out of the economy.
Reality: Government is We, the People and the money it spends is on We, the People. Many people do not know that it is government that builds the roads, airports, ports, courts, schools and other things that are the soil in which business thrives. Many people think that all government spending is on “welfare” and “foreign aid” when that is only a small part of the government’s budget.

The fact that there are so many people who believe things that are demonstrably untrue is a sad reflection on the media that ought to be informing the public. And worse, it’s evidence of how the corporations that control the press so blatantly misrepresent the truth. That’s why it’s so important for the rest of us to pass along the information above.

The GOP Pledge To America Is An Allegiance To The Past

The Republican Pledge to America is just another lousy product from GOP, Inc. It is nothing more than a rehash of their failed programs from the past.

Already the reception the Pledge has received is decidedly negative – from both sides of the aisle. While Democrats correctly point out that the Pledge is old news and leftovers, Republicans like Erick Erickson and Neil Boortz are criticizing it because it doesn’t go far enough (into Delusionland). This Pledge has managed to disappoint everyone, and it did so by design. John Boehner, the Pledge’s Godfather, introduced the Pledge by saying…

Boehner: “We are not going to be any different than what we’ve been.”

That’s comforting. And to prove it, the Pledge’s development was overseen by a former lobbyist for some of the nation’s most powerful oil, pharmaceutical, and insurance companies. Same old same old GOP.

Fair And Balanced Fox News Funds GOP

A report from Business Week reveals that Rupert Murdoch is keen on electing Republican governors. His News Corp donated a million dollars to the Republican Governors Association in June.

Fox News GOP TeaThis is a significant contribution to a partisan electoral committee. There are 37 governorships on the ballot this year. Democrats currently hold a majority of state houses, Republicans hope reverse that. And since this is census year, the control of state governments can have a huge impact on the make up of Congress for the next decade by managing the redistricting process.

It should come as no surprise to political observers that partisans on both sides are lining up to support the party they regard as most sympathetic to their views. Unions will back Democrats. Wall Street and Oil companies will back Republicans. But what makes this unique is that the media are supposed to be unaffiliated politically. How can they produce unbiased coverage of electoral issues while they are spending millions to benefit one side. Can we really expect them to be critical of the GOP when they are bankrolling their campaigns?

Not that Murdoch’s news enterprises have ever produced unbiased coverage in the first place. His Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, Fox Radio, etc., have made it their business to advocate on behalf of the GOP for years. Their anchors and reporters routinely bash Democrats and liberals. But the funds they are providing to the RGA will result in further Democrat bashing which Fox News will dutifully report on the air. And no doubt the RGA will allocate a considerable amount of their advertising budget to Fox News and other Murdoch entities. So Murdoch is effectively putting that money right back in his own pocket while advancing the goals of Republican candidates.

This is one of the most disturbing consequences of the modern media environment where giant corporations have been permitted to control so much of the press. They are devoted only to their own fiduciary interests as opposed to the public interest. Their international stature means that have no loyalty to any particular nation including the United States. Yet they can provide virtually unlimited funding to influence elections that impact the lives of millions of actual citizens who cannot hope to match that kind of political philanthropy. And with the recent ruling in the Citizens United case, these corporations can now expand their charitable largess to federal campaigns. Congressman Paul Hodes and Senator Chris Dodd have each introduced legislation in their respective chambers to reverse Citizens United, but there is still much work to be done.

What Can You Do?

  • Support Congressman Alan Grayson who has introduced a package of bills designed to “Defend Our Democracy.”
  • Sign on to the Pledge to Protect America’s Democracy sponsored by People For the American Way and Public Citizen.
  • Move to Amend the Constitution to establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.
  • Support The DISCLOSE Act to combat the new, unregulated corporate influence over elections.
  • Join the Fair Elections Now campaign to end corporate funded elections.
  • And get aboard the Free Press movement to reform the media, save the Internet, and restore independence, diversity and local representation in the media.

If we don’t succeed in returning control of our elections and our media to the people, we will continue to see perversions of democracy like that which News Corp is engaging in. Media corporations can’t serve the public while simultaneously financing partisan politics and padding their bank accounts, all at the public’s expense.

Update: For reference, the RGA also received donations (pdf) from wingnut billionaire David Koch ($1,000,000), GE ($105,000), Comcast ($50,000), Time Warner ($25,000), and SEIU ($100,000) Does Glenn Back know about that last one?

The DGA received donations (pdf) from AFSCME ($1,000,000), GE ($105,000), Comcast ($100,000), Time Warner ($35,000), and SEIU ($325,000), but $0.00 from News Corp.

Note that many organizations, including unions and media companies, play both sides of the fence. But News Corp is the only media enterprise that contributed to just one party. Fair and balanced my ass.