Saturday, August 17, 2013
President Barack Obama Weekly Address August 17, 2013 (Video/Transcript)
Hi, everybody. Over the past few weeks, I’ve been visiting with Americans across the country to talk about what we need to do to secure a better bargain for the middle class.
We need to rebuild an economy that rewards hard work and responsibility; an economy built firmly on the cornerstones of middle-class life. Good jobs. A good education. A home of your own. A secure retirement. And quality, affordable health care that’s there when you need it.
Right now, we’re well on our way to fully implementing the Affordable Care Act. And in the next few months, we’ll reach a couple milestones with real meaning for millions of Americans.
If you’re one of the 85% of Americans who already have insurance, you’ve already got new benefits and protections under this law that you didn’t before. Free checkups, mammograms, and contraceptive care. Discounted prescription medicine on Medicare. The fact you can stay on your parents’ plan until you turn 26. And much, much more. And it’s okay if you’re not a fan of the Affordable Care Act – you can take advantage of these things anyway.
If you don’t have insurance, beginning on October 1st, private plans will actually compete for your business. You can comparison shop in an online marketplace, just like you would for cell phone plans or plane tickets. You may be eligible for new tax credits to help you afford the plan that’s right for you. And if you’re in the up to half of all Americans who’ve been sick or have a preexisting condition, this law means that beginning January 1st, insurance companies have to cover you – and they can’t use your medical history to charge you more than anybody else.
You can find out more about the law, and how to sign up to buy your own coverage right now at HealthCare.gov. Tell your friends and neighbors without insurance about it, too. And tell your kids that there’s a new, easy way to buy affordable plans specifically tailored to young people.
Many Members of Congress, in both parties, are working hard to inform their constituents about these benefits, protections, and affordable plans. But there’s also a group of Republicans in Congress working hard to confuse people, and making empty promises that they’ll either shut down the health care law, or, if they don’t get their way, they’ll shut down the government.
Think about that. They’re actually having a debate between hurting Americans who will no longer be denied affordable care just because they’ve been sick – and harming the economy and millions of Americans in the process. And many Republicans are more concerned with how badly this debate will hurt them politically than they are with how badly it’ll hurt the country.
A lot of Republicans seem to believe that if they can gum up the works and make this law fail, they’ll somehow be sticking it to me. But they’d just be sticking it to you.
Some even say that if you call their office with questions about the law, they’ll refuse to help. Call me old-fashioned – but that’s lousy constituent service. And it’s not what you deserve.
Your health insurance isn’t something to play politics with. Our economy isn’t something to play politics with. This isn’t a game. This is about the economic security of millions of families.
See, in the states where governors and legislatures and insurers are working together to implement this law properly – states like California, New York, Colorado and Maryland – competition and consumer choice are actually making insurance affordable. So I’m going to keep doing everything in my power to make sure this law works as it’s supposed to. Because in the United States of America, health insurance isn’t a privilege – it is your right. And we’re going to keep it that way.
Thanks. And have a great weekend.
Monday, August 12, 2013
OPINION: reality check on the Affordable Care Act
Misleading information, sloppy coverage are confusing the public about Obamacare
Source: The Center for Public Integrity
By Wendell Potter
Not confused enough yet about how much health insurance might cost some of us next year when the consumer protections in Obamacare kick in? Just wait. It’s likely you’ll soon be far more confused — and alarmed — than you already are.
Take, as an example, the CNNMoney story from last week, headlined, “Where Obamacare premiums will soar.” The subhead was equally scary: “Get ready to shell out more money for individual health insurance under Obamacare … in some states, that is.”
The first thing you should keep in mind when you read such stories is that very few Americans will be affected by how much insurers will charge for the individual policies they’ll be selling in the online health insurance marketplaces beginning Oct. 1. The CNN story doesn’t mention, as it should have, that in a country of 315 million people, only 15 million — less than five percent of us — currently buy health insurance on our own through the so-called individual market because it’s not available to us through the workplace.
Although the CNN story focused exclusively on the individual market, nowhere in the story was it explained that, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, the vast majority of Americans — about 55 percent of us — are enrolled in health insurance plans sponsored by our employers. Another 32 percent of us are enrolled in Medicare, Medicaid and other public programs. That means that almost 9 out of 10 of us will not be affected at all by rates insurers will charge next year in the individual market.
The Americans who will be affected most by Obamacare are the millions who are uninsured because they either cannot buy coverage at any price today as a result of pre-existing conditions or they cannot afford what insurers are charging.
Although the CNN story didn’t mention that one of the main reasons for Obamacare was to make it possible for the uninsured to at long last buy affordable coverage, it is the uninsured who will be most directly affected by the reform law, and most likely to benefit. That’s because insurers next year will no longer be able to refuse to sell coverage to people who’ve been sick in the past. And because most people shopping for coverage on the online marketplaces will be eligible for federal subsidies to offset the cost of the premiums.
Not until deep in the CNN story are we informed that “Americans with incomes up to $45,960 for an individual and $94,200 for a family of four will be eligible for federal subsidies.” That’s a huge point to bury, especially considering that the median household income in this country is still just around $50,000. It’s just a small percentage of folks buying coverage through the online insurance marketplaces that will have to pay the full premium price on their own.
Below the headline of the CNN story was a startling graphic showing the states of Ohio and Florida with the numbers 41 percent and 35 percent right below them, leading one to believe that all residents of those states would see their health insurance premiums skyrocket.
As I did my own research of those claims, I found that not only did those numbers apply to just the individual market, but they did not take into account the subsidies that will be available. So not only will very few Ohioans and Floridians see their premiums increase by that much, many if not most will pay less than they do today thanks to the sliding-scale subsidies.
I also found that officials in those states were being disingenuous in the way they calculated their “Obamacare” figures. Ohio and Florida and many other states permit insurers to sell policies today that are so inadequate they will be outlawed beginning Jan. 1. The reason those kinds of policies are being outlawed is because, even though they are profitable for insurers that sell them, people who buy them often find out when it’s too late — after a serious illness or accident — that their policies are essentially worthless.
As The Miami Herald noted in a story about the projected rates announced recently by Florida’s Office of Insurance Regulation, the source for the CNN graphic, “The OIR compared ‘apples to oranges’ by failing to factor into its projections the fact that statewide averages for pre-Obamacare premiums included a wide variety of low-value plans — including plans with extremely limited benefits, such as no prescription drug coverage; and high-deductible plans, where the insured first must pay hefty out-of-pocket costs before the insurer begins to cover services.”
Considering all the intentionally misleading information we are being subjected to about Obamacare from politicians and special interests with an obvious agenda, it will be vitally important for reporters to be more responsible in their reporting. Sensational media stories with attention-grabbing headlines but inadequate analysis will only add to Americans’ confusion about a law that in reality will help the vast majority of us.
Take, as an example, the CNNMoney story from last week, headlined, “Where Obamacare premiums will soar.” The subhead was equally scary: “Get ready to shell out more money for individual health insurance under Obamacare … in some states, that is.”
The first thing you should keep in mind when you read such stories is that very few Americans will be affected by how much insurers will charge for the individual policies they’ll be selling in the online health insurance marketplaces beginning Oct. 1. The CNN story doesn’t mention, as it should have, that in a country of 315 million people, only 15 million — less than five percent of us — currently buy health insurance on our own through the so-called individual market because it’s not available to us through the workplace.
Although the CNN story focused exclusively on the individual market, nowhere in the story was it explained that, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, the vast majority of Americans — about 55 percent of us — are enrolled in health insurance plans sponsored by our employers. Another 32 percent of us are enrolled in Medicare, Medicaid and other public programs. That means that almost 9 out of 10 of us will not be affected at all by rates insurers will charge next year in the individual market.
The Americans who will be affected most by Obamacare are the millions who are uninsured because they either cannot buy coverage at any price today as a result of pre-existing conditions or they cannot afford what insurers are charging.
Although the CNN story didn’t mention that one of the main reasons for Obamacare was to make it possible for the uninsured to at long last buy affordable coverage, it is the uninsured who will be most directly affected by the reform law, and most likely to benefit. That’s because insurers next year will no longer be able to refuse to sell coverage to people who’ve been sick in the past. And because most people shopping for coverage on the online marketplaces will be eligible for federal subsidies to offset the cost of the premiums.
Not until deep in the CNN story are we informed that “Americans with incomes up to $45,960 for an individual and $94,200 for a family of four will be eligible for federal subsidies.” That’s a huge point to bury, especially considering that the median household income in this country is still just around $50,000. It’s just a small percentage of folks buying coverage through the online insurance marketplaces that will have to pay the full premium price on their own.
Below the headline of the CNN story was a startling graphic showing the states of Ohio and Florida with the numbers 41 percent and 35 percent right below them, leading one to believe that all residents of those states would see their health insurance premiums skyrocket.
As I did my own research of those claims, I found that not only did those numbers apply to just the individual market, but they did not take into account the subsidies that will be available. So not only will very few Ohioans and Floridians see their premiums increase by that much, many if not most will pay less than they do today thanks to the sliding-scale subsidies.
I also found that officials in those states were being disingenuous in the way they calculated their “Obamacare” figures. Ohio and Florida and many other states permit insurers to sell policies today that are so inadequate they will be outlawed beginning Jan. 1. The reason those kinds of policies are being outlawed is because, even though they are profitable for insurers that sell them, people who buy them often find out when it’s too late — after a serious illness or accident — that their policies are essentially worthless.
As The Miami Herald noted in a story about the projected rates announced recently by Florida’s Office of Insurance Regulation, the source for the CNN graphic, “The OIR compared ‘apples to oranges’ by failing to factor into its projections the fact that statewide averages for pre-Obamacare premiums included a wide variety of low-value plans — including plans with extremely limited benefits, such as no prescription drug coverage; and high-deductible plans, where the insured first must pay hefty out-of-pocket costs before the insurer begins to cover services.”
Considering all the intentionally misleading information we are being subjected to about Obamacare from politicians and special interests with an obvious agenda, it will be vitally important for reporters to be more responsible in their reporting. Sensational media stories with attention-grabbing headlines but inadequate analysis will only add to Americans’ confusion about a law that in reality will help the vast majority of us.
President Barack Obama Weekly Address August 3, 2013 (Video/Transcript)
Weekly Address
The White House
President Barack Obama Weekly Address August 3, 2013 (Video/Transcript)
Hi, everybody. For the past few weeks, I’ve been visiting folks across America to talk about what we need to do as a country to secure a better bargain for the middle class.
I’ve been laying out my ideas for how we can build on the cornerstones of what it means to be middle class in America. A good job. A good education. Affordable health care when you get sick. A secure retirement even if you’re not rich. And the chance to own your own home.
This week, I went to Arizona and California, two of the states hit hardest when the housing bubble burst, triggering the recession. All across the country, millions of responsible Americans were hurt badly by the reckless actions of others. Home values plummeted. Construction workers were laid off. And many families lost their homes.
Over the past four years, we’ve worked to help millions of responsible homeowners get back on their feet. And while we’re not where we need to be yet, our housing market is beginning to heal. Home prices and sales are rising. Construction is up. Foreclosures are down. Millions of families have come up for air because they’re no longer underwater on their mortgages.
Now we have to build on this progress. Congress should give every American the chance to refinance at today’s low rates. We should help more qualified families get a mortgage and buy their first home. We should get construction workers back on the job rebuilding communities hit hardest by the crisis. And we should make sure that folks who don’t want to buy a home have decent, affordable places to rent.
As home prices rise, we have to turn the page on the bubble-and-bust mentality that created this mess, and build a housing system that’s rock-solid and rewards responsibility for generations to come. We need to wind down the companies known as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, make sure private capital plays a bigger role in the mortgage market, and end the era of expecting a bailout after your pursuit of profit puts the whole country at risk. We need to preserve access to safe and simple mortgages like the 30-year, fixed-rate mortgage. We need to keep laying down rules of the road that protect homeowners when they’re making the biggest purchase of their lives. And finally, Congress needs to confirm Mel Watt to be our nation’s top housing regulator, so that he can protect consumers and help responsible lenders provide credit.
No program or policy will solve all the problems in a multi-trillion dollar housing market, and it will take time to fully recover. But if we work together, we can make a home a source of pride and middle-class security again. And if Washington is willing to set aside politics and focus on what really matters, we can rebuild an economy where if you work hard, you can get ahead.
Thanks, and have a great weekend.
Friday, August 9, 2013
Obama pledges spy programme transparency (?)
The news of today was, “Obama pledges spy programme transparency” He vows to reform Patriot Act to increase transparency and restore public trust in surveillance by the National Security Agency (NSA).
My question is, can the government make a spy programme transparent? Isn’t a spy program designed to be secret? And if the surveillance by NSA is secret, how can it be at the same time to be more transparent? Doesn’t transparent mean that the public is allowed to see right through it and would know exactly what the NSA and other spying agencies are doing?
And if those spy programmes are not secret, why is there so much fuss about Edward Snowden. Something is wrong here.
Barack Obama wants us believe that trust is better than control. However, I still stick to the old saying, control is better that trust.
Can America Be Fixed?
Originally posted on Foreign Affairs
In November, the American electorate, deeply unhappy with Washington and its political gridlock, voted to maintain precisely the same distribution of power -- returning President Barack Obama for a second term and restoring a Democratic Senate and a Republican House of Representatives. With at least the electoral uncertainty out of the way, attention quickly turned to how the country's lawmakers would address the immediate crisis known as the fiscal cliff -- the impending end-of-year tax increases and government spending cuts mandated by earlier legislation.
As the United States continues its slow but steady recovery from the depths of the financial crisis, nobody actually wants a massive austerity package to shock the economy back into recession, and so the odds have always been high that the game of budgetary chicken will stop short of disaster. Looming past the cliff, however, is a deep chasm that poses a much greater challenge -- the retooling of the country's economy, society, and government necessary for the United States to perform effectively in the twenty-first century. The focus in Washington now is on taxing and cutting; it should be on reforming and investing. The United States needs serious change in its fiscal, entitlement, infrastructure, immigration, and education policies, among others. And yet a polarized and often paralyzed Washington has pushed dealing with these problems off into the future, which will only make them more difficult and expensive to solve.
Studies show that the political divisions in Washington are at their worst since the years following the Civil War. Twice in the last three years, the world's leading power -- with the largest economy, the global reserve currency, and a dominant leadership role in all international institutions -- has come close to committing economic suicide. The American economy remains extremely dynamic. But one has to wonder whether the U.S. political system is capable of making the changes that will ensure continued success in a world of greater global competition and technological change. Is the current predicament, in other words, really a crisis of democracy?
The New Crisis of Democracy
As the United States continues its slow but steady recovery from the depths of the financial crisis, nobody actually wants a massive austerity package to shock the economy back into recession, and so the odds have always been high that the game of budgetary chicken will stop short of disaster. Looming past the cliff, however, is a deep chasm that poses a much greater challenge -- the retooling of the country's economy, society, and government necessary for the United States to perform effectively in the twenty-first century. The focus in Washington now is on taxing and cutting; it should be on reforming and investing. The United States needs serious change in its fiscal, entitlement, infrastructure, immigration, and education policies, among others. And yet a polarized and often paralyzed Washington has pushed dealing with these problems off into the future, which will only make them more difficult and expensive to solve.
Studies show that the political divisions in Washington are at their worst since the years following the Civil War. Twice in the last three years, the world's leading power -- with the largest economy, the global reserve currency, and a dominant leadership role in all international institutions -- has come close to committing economic suicide. The American economy remains extremely dynamic. But one has to wonder whether the U.S. political system is capable of making the changes that will ensure continued success in a world of greater global competition and technological change. Is the current predicament, in other words, really a crisis of democracy?
Tuesday, August 6, 2013
President Barack Obama Weekly Address August 3, 2013 (Video/Transcript)
Weekly Address
The White House
August 3, 2013
Hi, everybody. This week, I went down to an Amazon warehouse in Tennessee to talk more about what we need to do to secure a better bargain for the middle class – to make sure that anyone who works hard can get ahead in the 21st century economy.
Over the past four and a half years, we’ve fought our way back from the worst recession of our lifetimes and begun to lay a foundation for stronger, more durable economic growth. Today, our businesses have created 7.3 million new jobs over the last 41 months. We now sell more products made in America to the rest of the world than ever before. Health care costs are growing at the slowest rate in 50 years, and our deficits are falling at the fastest rate in 60 years.
But as any middle-class family will tell you, we’re not where we need to be yet. Even before the crisis hit, we were living through a decade where a few at the top were doing better and better, while most families were working harder and harder just to get by.
Reversing this trend must be Washington’s highest priority. It’s certainly mine. But too often over the past two years, Washington has taken its eye off the ball. They’ve allowed an endless parade of political posturing and phony scandals to distract from growing our economy and strengthening the middle class.
That’s why I’m laying out my ideas for how we can build on the cornerstones of what it means to be middle class in America. A good education. A home of your own. Health care when you get sick. A secure retirement even if you’re not rich. And the most important cornerstone of all: a good job in a durable, growing industry.
When it comes to creating more good jobs that pay decent wages, the problem is not a lack of ideas. Plenty of independent economists, business owners and people from both parties agree on what we have to do. I proposed many of these ideas two years ago in the American Jobs Act. And this week, I put forward common-sense proposals for how we can create more jobs in manufacturing; in wind, solar and natural gas; and by rebuilding America’s infrastructure.
What we’re lacking is action from Washington. And that’s why, in addition to proposing ideas that we know will grow our economy, I’ve also put forward a strategy for breaking through the Washington logjam – a “grand bargain” for the middle class.
I’m willing to work with Republicans to simplify our tax code for businesses large and small, but only if we take the money we save by transitioning to a simpler tax system and make a significant investment in creating good, middle-class jobs. We can put construction workers back on the job rebuilding our infrastructure. We can boost manufacturing, so more American companies can sell their products around the world. And we can help our community colleges arm our workers with the skills they need in a global economy – all without adding a dime to the deficit.
I’ll keep laying out my ideas to give the middle class a better shot in the 21st century, and I’ll keep reaching out to Republicans for theirs. But gutting critical investments in our future and threatening national default on the bills that Congress has already racked up – that’s not an economic plan. Denying health care to millions of Americans, or shutting down the government just because I’m for keeping it open – that won’t help the middle class.
The truth is, there are no gimmicks when it comes to creating jobs. There are no tricks to grow the economy. Reversing the long erosion of middle-class security in this country won’t be easy. But if we work together and take a few bold steps – and if Washington is willing to set aside politics and focus on what really matters – we can grow our economy and give the middle class a better bargain. And together, we can make this country a place where everyone who works hard can get ahead.
Thanks, and have a great weekend.
Sunday, July 21, 2013
D.C.-based groups spent big in special elections
Source: The Center for Public Integrity
By Dave Levinthal
Carpetbagging super PACs and nonprofit groups are dominating this year’s special congressional elections in a potential foreshadowing of the 2014 midterms, where even the sleepiest locales aren’t immune from out-of-state, cash-flush special interests.
Take Massachusetts’ U.S. Senate election, which last month propelled veteran Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., to Congress’ upper chamber — and attracted millions of dollars in outside spending from political groups based in California, New York and Florida.
Organizations in Illinois, meanwhile, spent precisely zero dollars to advocate for or against several candidates who vied early this year to replace ex-Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., D-Ill., while outfits from everywhere but collectively burned through more than $2 million.
South Carolina? The biggest players backing or bashing eventual House seat winner Republican Mark Sanford, or his Democratic opponent, Elizabeth Colbert Busch, weren’t from Columbia or Charleston, but Washington, D.C.
So far this year, just 4 percent of the $12.4 million spent by political groups or party entities on congressional races came from groups based within the state where they’re doing their spending, a Center for Public Integrity analysis of federal independent expenditure data indicates.
Spending by outside groups has become a pivotal element in elections thanks to the Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which allowed super PACs, unions and certain nonprofits to raise and spend unlimited amounts of money to advocate for or against political candidates.
Washington, D.C., is far and away the biggest source of funding. In all, groups with headquarters in the nation’s capital account this year for about two-thirds of independent expenditures on congressional races. That figure jumps to nearly 72 percent when factoring in organizations from New York City and the D.C. suburbs.
Even homegrown groups usually outsource their work: only three-tenths of a percent of independent expenditures come from in-state groups that also used in-state vendors to produce or manage their advertisements and communications, the Center’s analysis shows.
To illustrate the point, in most cases, state lines are irrelevant when it comes to those who pay for independent ads, those who produce them and even where they air. And it's not as if states that hosted special elections aren't home to political consultants.
For example, Independent Women’s Voice, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit, paid Illinois firm Victory Media Group to generate $130,000 worth of television advertisements and telemarketing calls primarily slamming Colbert Busch in South Carolina.
Freestone Communications of Missouri — a state that hosted a special election in June — got $64,250 worth of business from the League of Conservation Voters in Washington, D.C., to make phone calls on behalf of Markey in Massachusetts.
And Progressive U.S.A. Voters of Denver paid Grassroots Voter Outreach of Boston more than $21,000 for canvassing services in Illinois’ District 2 Democratic congressional primary.
Most of it targeted Democrat Debbie Halvorson, who lost badly to fellow Democrat and former state Rep. Robin Kelly, the general election’s eventual winner.
Super PACs and nonprofits played a prominent, and sometimes dominant role in many 2012 congressional races, often injecting hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars of advertising into the elections and sometimes spending more than the candidates themselves.
This flood of outside cash doesn’t sit well with Tim Buckley of the Massachusetts Republican Party, which is one of just three non-candidate committees active in special elections this year that are both based in the state in which they were active and hired in-state help for their advocacy.
Local consultants know their turf better than outsiders and better parse the political intricacies of a state such as Massachusetts, which while strongly Democratic has still elected plenty of Republicans, Buckley argued.
The party paid Campaign Homebank LLC of Boston more than $31,000 for telemarketing services promoting GOP Senate nominee Gabriel Gomez, who lost last month to Markey. It also hired a separate, Virginia-based firm for similar work, paying it about $143,000.
But some outside groups defend their activity as necessary, even healthy, given that congressional candidates hold sway on issues of national interest that reach far behind district boundaries or state lines.
The New York City-based 501(c)(4) nonprofit 350.org Action Fund, which advocates for fighting climate change, made nearly $50,000 worth of independent expenditures in Massachusetts’ special Senate election Democratic primary, supporting Markey over Rep. Stephen Lynch, D-Mass.
Since the Democratic nominees disagreed about the hot button issue of the Keystone XL Pipeline project, the group threw its support behind Markey for rejecting the pipeline, 350.org Action Fund Media Campaigner Daniel Kessler explained.
“We thought it would be important to show that there would be electoral consequences for those that do not oppose the pipeline,” Kessler said.
Looking toward the 2014 midterm elections, early indicators suggest organizations with few geographic ties to key political battlegrounds plan to participate as much or more than ever.
Liberal 501(c)(4) nonprofit Patriot Majority USA and super PAC Senate Majority PAC — both from Washington, D.C. — have together already made more than $277,000 worth of independent expenditures against Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who faces a potentially tough re-election fight.
Washington, D.C.-based super PAC Club for Growth Action’s independent expenditures have already exceeded $182,000 in opposing U.S. Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark.
In opposing Pryor, Club for Growth Action has used vendors for mail production costs and television ads from a range of states including Washington, D.C., Maryland, Virginia and West Virginia.
It’s a practice Keller called “pretty common,” and that Club for Growth Action chose those vendors because of past experiences working together and locations.
“Do you fly to Alabama to get a mortgage?” he asked. “Do you drive to Minnesota to use to the ATM?”
Erin Quinn contributed to this report.
Nearly three-quarters of spending comes from capital region
By Dave Levinthalemail
Carpetbagging super PACs and nonprofit groups are dominating this year’s special congressional elections in a potential foreshadowing of the 2014 midterms, where even the sleepiest locales aren’t immune from out-of-state, cash-flush special interests.Take Massachusetts’ U.S. Senate election, which last month propelled veteran Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., to Congress’ upper chamber — and attracted millions of dollars in outside spending from political groups based in California, New York and Florida.
Organizations in Illinois, meanwhile, spent precisely zero dollars to advocate for or against several candidates who vied early this year to replace ex-Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., D-Ill., while outfits from everywhere but collectively burned through more than $2 million.
South Carolina? The biggest players backing or bashing eventual House seat winner Republican Mark Sanford, or his Democratic opponent, Elizabeth Colbert Busch, weren’t from Columbia or Charleston, but Washington, D.C.
So far this year, just 4 percent of the $12.4 million spent by political groups or party entities on congressional races came from groups based within the state where they’re doing their spending, a Center for Public Integrity analysis of federal independent expenditure data indicates.
Spending by outside groups has become a pivotal element in elections thanks to the Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which allowed super PACs, unions and certain nonprofits to raise and spend unlimited amounts of money to advocate for or against political candidates.
Washington, D.C., is far and away the biggest source of funding. In all, groups with headquarters in the nation’s capital account this year for about two-thirds of independent expenditures on congressional races. That figure jumps to nearly 72 percent when factoring in organizations from New York City and the D.C. suburbs.
Even homegrown groups usually outsource their work: only three-tenths of a percent of independent expenditures come from in-state groups that also used in-state vendors to produce or manage their advertisements and communications, the Center’s analysis shows.
To illustrate the point, in most cases, state lines are irrelevant when it comes to those who pay for independent ads, those who produce them and even where they air. And it's not as if states that hosted special elections aren't home to political consultants.
For example, Independent Women’s Voice, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit, paid Illinois firm Victory Media Group to generate $130,000 worth of television advertisements and telemarketing calls primarily slamming Colbert Busch in South Carolina.
Freestone Communications of Missouri — a state that hosted a special election in June — got $64,250 worth of business from the League of Conservation Voters in Washington, D.C., to make phone calls on behalf of Markey in Massachusetts.
And Progressive U.S.A. Voters of Denver paid Grassroots Voter Outreach of Boston more than $21,000 for canvassing services in Illinois’ District 2 Democratic congressional primary.
Most of it targeted Democrat Debbie Halvorson, who lost badly to fellow Democrat and former state Rep. Robin Kelly, the general election’s eventual winner.
Super PACs and nonprofits played a prominent, and sometimes dominant role in many 2012 congressional races, often injecting hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars of advertising into the elections and sometimes spending more than the candidates themselves.
This flood of outside cash doesn’t sit well with Tim Buckley of the Massachusetts Republican Party, which is one of just three non-candidate committees active in special elections this year that are both based in the state in which they were active and hired in-state help for their advocacy.
Local consultants know their turf better than outsiders and better parse the political intricacies of a state such as Massachusetts, which while strongly Democratic has still elected plenty of Republicans, Buckley argued.
The party paid Campaign Homebank LLC of Boston more than $31,000 for telemarketing services promoting GOP Senate nominee Gabriel Gomez, who lost last month to Markey. It also hired a separate, Virginia-based firm for similar work, paying it about $143,000.
But some outside groups defend their activity as necessary, even healthy, given that congressional candidates hold sway on issues of national interest that reach far behind district boundaries or state lines.
The New York City-based 501(c)(4) nonprofit 350.org Action Fund, which advocates for fighting climate change, made nearly $50,000 worth of independent expenditures in Massachusetts’ special Senate election Democratic primary, supporting Markey over Rep. Stephen Lynch, D-Mass.
Since the Democratic nominees disagreed about the hot button issue of the Keystone XL Pipeline project, the group threw its support behind Markey for rejecting the pipeline, 350.org Action Fund Media Campaigner Daniel Kessler explained.
“We thought it would be important to show that there would be electoral consequences for those that do not oppose the pipeline,” Kessler said.
Looking toward the 2014 midterm elections, early indicators suggest organizations with few geographic ties to key political battlegrounds plan to participate as much or more than ever.
Liberal 501(c)(4) nonprofit Patriot Majority USA and super PAC Senate Majority PAC — both from Washington, D.C. — have together already made more than $277,000 worth of independent expenditures against Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who faces a potentially tough re-election fight.
Washington, D.C.-based super PAC Club for Growth Action’s independent expenditures have already exceeded $182,000 in opposing U.S. Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark.
In opposing Pryor, Club for Growth Action has used vendors for mail production costs and television ads from a range of states including Washington, D.C., Maryland, Virginia and West Virginia.
It’s a practice Keller called “pretty common,” and that Club for Growth Action chose those vendors because of past experiences working together and locations.
“Do you fly to Alabama to get a mortgage?” he asked. “Do you drive to Minnesota to use to the ATM?”
Erin Quinn contributed to this report.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)