House Republicans will hold a symbolic vote to overturn health care reform on January 12. The bill, which would repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and set the nation's health care laws back to the way they were last March, has no chance of becoming law. The GOP controls the House, but Democrats control the Senate. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced that the Senate Democrats will block the bill.
Suzy Khimm of Mother Jones reports that the 2-page House bill carries no price tag. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the ACA would save $143 billion dollars over the next decade. The GOP repeal bill contains no alternative plan. So, repealing the ACA would be tantamount to adding $143 billion to the deficit. So much for fiscal responsibility.
Why are the Republicans rushing to vote on a doomed bill without even bothering to hold hearings, or formulate a counter-proposal for the Congressional Budget Office to score? Kevin Drum of Mother Joneshazards a guess:
[Speaker John] Boehner [(R-OH)] knows two things: (a) he has to schedule a repeal vote because the tea partiers will go into open revolt if he doesn't, and (b) it's a dead letter with nothing more than symbolic value. So he's scheduling a quick vote with no hearings and no CBO scoring just so he can say he's done it, after which he can move on to other business he actually cares about.
An opportunity?
Steve Benen of the Washington Monthly argues that all this political theater around repealing the Affordable Care Act is an opportunity for Democrats to remind the public about all the popular aspects of the bill that the GOP is trying to strip away.
Last weekend several key provisions of the ACA took effect, including help for middle income seniors who are running up against the prescription drug "donut hole." Until last Saturday, their drugs were covered up to a relatively low threshold, then they were on their own until they spent enough on prescriptions for the catastrophic coverage to kick in again. Those seniors will be reluctant to give up their brand new 50% discount on drugs in the donut hole.
Another crack at turning eggs into persons
A Colorado ballot initiative to bestow full human rights on fertilized ova was resoundingly defeated for the second time in the last midterm elections. Attempts to reclassify fertilized ova as people are an attempt to ban abortion, stem cell research, and some forms of birth control. Patrick Caldwell of the American Independent reports that new egg-as-person campaigns are stirring in other states where activists hope to take advantage of new Republican majorities.
Personhood USA, the group behind the failed Colorado ballot initiatives, claims that there is "action" (of some description) on personhood legislation in 30 states. Caldwell says Florida may be the next battleground. Personhood USA needs 676,000 signatures to get their proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot. Right now, they have zero, but they promise a "big push" in 2011.
Ronald McDonald = Joe the Camel
In AlterNet, Kelle Louaillier calls for more regulation of fast food industry advertising to children. New research shows that children are being exposed to significantly more fast food ads than they were just a few years ago. Other studies demonstrate that children give higher marks to food products when they are paired with a cartoon character. Louaillier writes of her organization's campaign to prevent fast food companies from using cartoons to market fast food to kids:
For our part, my organization launched a campaign in March to convince McDonald's to retire Ronald McDonald, its iconic advertising character, and the suite of predatory marketing practices of which the clown is at the heart. A study we commissioned by Lake Research Partners found that more than half of those polled say they "favor stopping corporations from using cartoons and other children's characters to sell harmful products to children."
Local elected officials are joining the cause, too. Los Angeles recently voted to make permanent a ban on the construction of new fast food restaurants in parts of the city. San Francisco has limited toy giveaway promotions to children's meals that meet basic health criteria. The idea is spreading to other cities.
2011 trendspotting: Baby food
The hot new snack trend for 2011 is mush, as Bonnie Azab Powell reports in Grist. In an attempt to burnish its portfolio of "healthier" snack options for kids Tropicana (a PepsiCo company) is introducing a new line of pureed fruit and vegetable slurries. The products, sold under the brand name Tropolis, feature ground up fruits and veggies, vitamin C, and fiber in a portable plastic pouch. These "drinkified snacks" or "snackified drinks" will be priced at $2.49 to $3.49 for a four-pack, making them more expensive than fresh fruit.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about health care by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Pulse for a complete list of articles on health care reform, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, environment, health care and immigration issues, check out The Audit, The Mulch, and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.
Politico's article today is the latest in a string of articles about the massive edge in money pro-Republican outside groups have over pro-Democratic groups. The article cites a $23 million to $4 million dollar ratio in advertising so far. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that outside groups tend to be trusted more than political party advertising.
The article makes pretty clear that some Democrats on the Hill want to blame the outside groups on our side for not doing enough, and we will see more of that kind of blame game in the coming weeks. It is certainly understandable that individual members who take tough votes are frustrated when big corporate interests dump money on their districts for ads that in many cases are just blatant lies, and no one comes to their defense. I know the party committees are pulling their hair out with the barrage of corporate money being thrown into targeted races everywhere. But here's the deal: congressional leaders need only look down the street, Pennsylvania Avenue to be precise, to find the answers as to why there isn't more money going into independent expenditure efforts on the Democratic side.
This is in part a historical problem, a pattern in the party leadership that I sometimes refer to as the curse of the control freaks. Republicans for many years have understood far better than Democrats that outside issue and ideological groups ought to be empowered, not discouraged. Haley Barbour, Karl Rove, and other top Republicans have for years happily worked hand in hand with Grover Norquist, the NRA, the Christian Coalition, the Chamber of Commerce, the Koch Industries front groups, and the entire right-wing infrastructure. Republicans came to their strategy meetings, attended their fundraising dinners, signed their direct mail pieces and emails and Tweets and text messages. Republican operatives have for decades understood that conservative organizations with well-known brands had more credibility with key blocs of voters than either political party and most candidates.
The same is true with progressive groups and key voting blocs as well, but the Democratic Party has never paid these groups much attention. Polling shows quite clearly that many swing suburban voters find ads or mailings from Planned Parenthood, the League of Conservation Voters, and groups like them far more credible than ads from the Democratic Party. Union members are far more likely to read and respect a mailing from their union than a partisan mail piece.
These trends are even bigger in an election cycle like 2010, when both parties' brands are in the mud. Independent group messages have far more credibility and clout than those from party and candidate committees- even groups with generic-sounding names no one has heard of. Republican strategists like Rove got this early, and went about methodically organizing a network of corporate money to get involved in independent expenditure ads in swing races all over the country. But the Obama White House, sure of its fundraising ability and organizing genius, has consistently sent the signal to Democratic donors to not support outside efforts. They did it after they won the primary in 2008; they did it when they set up OFA to operate solely inside the DNC in 2009; they did it during the health care fight when they felt HCAN was being a little too independent in pushing for a public option, sending a clear signal to donors not to give to them at crucial times during the fight; they did it when ACORN had some bad publicity, very quickly making the decision to distance themselves and let them die even though no group has registered more voters or turned out more people in the last 10 years than ACORN.
I have been fighting this battle inside Democratic strategy circles for 15 years now, but the problem is worse with the current team at the White House. The folks running the Obama political operation have always believed they could control the message and the resources of the party better than anyone else, and that they didn't need or want to empower outside progressive groups. Now embattled House and Senate candidates are paying the price, and it is a bitter price to have to pay. The groups that do have resources that are pro-Democratic- labor, MoveOn, Emily's List, the trial lawyers- are doing their best to stem the tide. But corporate money in the post-Citizens United era is swamping us, and unlike in some cycles in the past (2004, 2006), wealthy progressive donors were sent signals not to engage, or just not cultivated at all, and the result is that we are being badly outspent.
One final note on all this: the irony of outside progressive groups being blamed for not doing enough to help the Democrats when the White House has been complaining about the "left of the left" and the "professional left" for many months- and de-motivating donors the whole time- should not be lost on anyone. You can't attack progressives for being too strident and then wonder why they aren't doing more and still have much credibility.
As I have written in recent days, I still have hopes that Democrats can do better this cycle than the conventional wisdom suggests, especially if the Democrats use a pro-reform populist message that is actually effective. But the curse of the control freaks is not helping anything.
I guess we'll know tomorrow with his "speech to the nation," as it is being called by the TV Pundits. It's been 56 days now since the explosion that started the oil eruption under water and just about everything that has been tried has been functionally useless (there's a cap of sorts taking our a small percentage of the flow, but not enough to make a difference, and two relief wells are being drilled to cut off the leak itself, but we're about two months away from it happening).
So I've spent the whole day in the No On 1 campaign boiler room. Today we raised close to $70,000 from 1,200 people. Which is stunning. I asked you guys for help this morning, when we saw our opponents did a big 'raiser to air their new radio ad and who knows what else. You just absolutely blew away our expectations, and we think based on past fundraising they've done online, blew their 'raiser out of the water.
Jesse Connolly, the No On 1 campaign manager, just walked back in the office on his way back from the bank. He saw the ActBlue total on my screen and literally grabbed my Flipcam.
My sentiments exactly. I've been writing about this campaign for months, asked you for a lot, and you've given over $7,000 at our OpenLeft/Better Dems page, and now this. I'm a little mentally wiped and don't have much eloquent to say except thanks. Again.
If you want the latest from on the boiler room here, tonight I'll be on The Young Turks at 8:40 PM EST (listen on Sirius 109, XM 98) and then on Live From the Left Coast with Angie Coiro (if you're not on the left coast, click here to listen).
Looking forward to bringing home a win tomorrow for you guys.
Update: We broke through $50,000. Amazing. THANK YOU! Can you help get to $70K?
So I'm back on the ground in Maine helping the online team. Things are a little intense, so a few quick bullet points:
The latest polling from Public Policy Polling came out at midnight, showing us down 51-47%. Their methodology has a few problems with it, but they've consistently shown our opponents trending upward.
The field team is firing on all cylinders. Biggest concern is youth turnout in off-year. In 2005, an anti-discrimination ballot initiative went our way and we had one campus field organizer for the whole state. This year we have nine. But the numbers are tight as hell, and if turnout is like a normal election year, we'll lose. Everyone is saying we have to execute a flawless program.
A fun chunk of the progressive and LGBT blogosphere has come to Maine for the final push. John and Joe from AMERICABlog are both here, Julia Rosen from Courage/Calitics/C&L, Jeremy Hooper from Good As You, a number of others. We're all spread out in field, online, video.
Our opponents just pushed out a $25,000 fundraising push yesterday and used it to buy this radio ad that just came out:
They also jumped their online ad buy (it's really fun being here in Maine and now ads are geo-targeted to me, so I see them a lot more).
The campaign needs to increase its own buy to respond, but we need to raise to do it- we've put a lot of money into field. We put up a red alert this morning. $15,000 has come in the last hour. The campaign is calling it a "red alert" because we literally could be swamped on radio, online, and TV today and tomorrow- and as I wrote here, their last two ads are the most effective of the cycle. $25,000 buys a LOT of time in Maine.
If you could give just one more time for the campaign, it would go a very, very long way. Tomorrow is the big day. Thanks for this one last bit of help.
Hark! A Stand for Marriage Maine ad that doesn't completely suck! And after weeks of fearmongering, a positive one to boot!
This seems like their closing argument to me, and is a strong one at that: "we can protect traditional marriage while preserving the rights of gay couples."
But it rings false on the merits. Even in their own ad the language is highlighted: "Under the law, registered domestic partners are accorded a legal status similar to that of a married person". Not the same. And Gerald over at Dirigo Blue points out that on the State of Maine's own website, the state clearly prints "it is important to remember that a registered domestic partnership is NOT the same as a marriage". On top of that, when DOMA is repealed, domestic partners will not get the over-1,000 federal benefits of marriage. Nor will they get the respect and dignity of marriage.
Put more simply, as Nick McCoy, an organizer with HRC, said at yesterday's DC Council hearing on marriage equality legislation, "You don't say 'will you domestic partner me' to the person you love."
At OpenLeft, we sent out an e-mail blast today (if you're not on our list, sign up here) promoting the No On 1/Protect Maine Equality's Call for Equality program. When I was up in Maine, I discovered how much of the state is actually very rural- too remote for effective canvassing. We have to reach those voters, and our urban/suburban supporters, by phone using Call for Equality.
It'll take just a few hours to ensure we win this thing. No experience required, all you need is an evening, a phone and an internet connection, and the campaign even provides training.
This thing isn't over, and the other side just made a strong closing argument. Please sign up to Call for Equality and help win this.
Last last night I heard that Stand For Marriage Maine's latest ads was pulled on YouTube due to an NPR copyright violation. In the ad, the actress (if you can call her that, as she's awful) used an NPR clip, albeit with attribution.
National Public Radio is demanding that the Stand for Marriage Maine group stop using its content in television ads supporting a people's veto of a new same-sex marriage law.
[...]
"NPR did not license use of this story or its content, and would certainly not have licensed or permitted it if we had been asked," Rehm said in a statement. "NPR is a highly respected news organization and does not allow its content to be used by political or advocacy groups. Such use is harmful to the integrity and independence of NPR. NPR does allow - even encourage -- personal, non-commercial use of our content, so long as it is not modified, and not used in a manner that suggests NPR promotes or endorses a cause, idea, Web site, product or service. The use made by Stand for Marriage Maine violated all of these terms."
What is interesting to me is how NPR seems to stand out alone among news media in this regard- campaign attack ads use clips of opponents in debates, forums, etc. all the time. Even presidential campaigns do, and I don't hear about protests from the news media that aired the clip. And I'm a little wary of the restriction- if I did an interview to promote my new website on NPR, I can't use the clip in promotional activities?
It does all add up to a nice waste of money by SFMM, though. Whoops.
Update: Marc Mutty, who runs the Stand For Marriage Maine campaign (our opponents), said today on Maine Public Broadcasting Network "We've never said that schools will be mandated- or, actually, perhaps we did in one ad, or certainly led people to believe that, inadvertently." Wow.
The Yes On 1 campaign has gone more or less all on one message: that a change in Maine law would force local schools to teach marriage equality. It's been the focus of their last three advertisements and mentioned in a fourth. It's been debunked by all of the state's largest newspapers, the Maine Public Broadcasting Network, the Maine Department of Education, a coalition of former attorneys general and law experts, and most recently by the current Maine Attorney General. 61.6% of likely voters in last week's poll said they didn't believe the line.
Today I went to a press conference where Speaker of the House Hannah Pingree (the daughter of Rep. Chellie Pingree) and former Attorney General Jim Tierney spoke about the lies in the ads and Yes On 1's attacks on the current Maine Attorney General for her opinion.
It will be interesting to see if our opponents concentrate everything on this message through election day. Our side is hitting them senseless on the issue, and the over $1.15 million you chipped in last week helped put this ad on the air.
Last night I wrote about the Yes On 1 Campaign's stupid ad trying to push the debunked line that a change in Maine law would force children to learn about marriage equality (the horror).
The ad says to voters "go ahead. We've got nothing to hide. Decide for yourself whether the book teaches Maine values", which is straightforward and honest. Excellent idea.
You just broke through $1,000 in contributions for the No On 1 campaign on our OpenLeft/Better Dems page. Now, we've got a larger goal to help keep ads like these on the air. I'll be heading up to Maine Oct. 14th, and early in-person voting starts the 15th. This thing is winding down to the finish line. The last poll showed us up 51-40. Let's put the nail in the coffin. We're close to $1 million for the campaign all across the netroots. If we can hit $1 million by the day voters start going to the polls on Oct. 15th, that'll help give the campaign the resources to finish the job.
And remember, as Maine goes, so goes the nation. This'll impact marriage contests all across our country. Please chip in below, and thanks for helping out.
The Yes On 1 campaign in Maine has a stupid new ad:
I'm no ad expert, but the ad asks readers to focus on too many things at once, and seems to be an attempt at creating a tit-for-tat over the "whether marriage will be taught in schools" issue. The Yes On 1 side knows they're lying, as the Maine Department of Education itself said through a spokesperon that state law does not affect local curricula, and that Maine is not Massachusetts. Multiple newspapers have stated that Yes On 1 is lying. But if they want to burn their dollars through fear, go right ahead.
Our side, on the other hand, is pushing out some smart and useful resources. Here in DC this weekend, there's a big march. Instead, I'll be spending Saturday night raising money for Maine (if you're in DC, come on by!), and Sunday doing calls to Maine voters from my computer. You can join. Courage Campaign has set up an easy tool to sign up for a time block. If you don't have any money to contribute, and can't take time to get to Maine, you can sit right at home, put the baseball playoffs on mute, and ask some Maine voters to support equality.
If you can get some time off, or are self-employed, head on up to Maine. Because of generous contributions from folks like you, I'll be up there Oct. 14-23. Travel For Change, which helped Obama volunteers travel to swing states, is making it possible to join me- even if you don't have a lot of funds. Come on up and join. If you need incentives, I have multiple hilarious stories of Mike Lux and I on book tour to share with you over a beer.
First, I want to thank everyone who contributed for me to go to Maine next month and blog on the ground about this campaign. If you haven't chipped in yet, you can do so here. Thank you so much for your generosity, and look for some great content here at OpenLeft in just a few weeks!
Earlier this week I wrote about the anti-equality campaign's new ad in Maine, which is a carbon copy of the Yes on 8 campaign's ad in California. The two campaigns use the same consulting firm, Schubert Flint Public Affairs. The ad was about how marriage equality would force school districts to teach the principles of equality in local schools (oh, the horror).
Our side hit back, and the ad was universally debunked as misleading at best and a lie at worst.
Gerald at Dirigo Blue called the Maine Department of Education, which then released a statement saying a change in Maine's definition of marriage would not require local school districts to change their teaching requirements.
Maine legislative leaders, several former attorneys general and law experts wrote a memorandum ripping apart the argument in the advertising as completely false.
Our side successfully hit back against the right-wingers in the journalistic department. Today, the No On 1 campaign is hitting back on TV:
There are multiple ways to help take this further. If you're in Maine or know someone who is, ask them to sign up for the No On 1 e-mail list, and to write a letter to the editor on how false the other side's ads are. If you're not in Maine, go to your Facebook wall and/or Twitter feed, and post the response ad (here's the link) and this link to sign up for the No On 1 campaign. Because even if you don't know anyone in Maine, you may have friends out there on the internets who do. If you're either, you can go vote in this local FOX poll (right side of the page).
I wrote yesterday about an interconnected movement. Fighting back- bloggers, you, and No On 1- together is how we can string together victories that demoralize and help defund the right. Let's get it done.
So the Hey Hey Ho Ho Equality Has Got to GoYes on 1 campaign in Maine came out with their first ad, and the good news is that, well, it's not so great.
Aside from being a classic fear ad, it strikes me as wholly inauthentic. I don't know what's with the Boston College expert walking around his office (did they just flip through their rolodex and pick a name at random?), freaky Thriller music and lots of words running across the screen all at once. Contrasted to the first two No On 1/Protect Maine Equality ads below with two authentic families, it's a dud.
Here's the bad news. The Break Up FamiliesYes on 1 campaign's ad buy is $700,000, enough for each voter to see that ad 20 times.
But there's also some more good news. The No on 1/Protect Maine Equality campaign just launched a peer-to-peer fundraising tool to use to hit up friends, family and colleagues you have. I've played with it a bit, and it's pretty easy to use.
I just thought about it, and I have plenty of LGBT friends who are not invested in this campaign because it's way up in Maine, but should be, the same way we all care who wins a random primary election somewhere else. I believe the Maine campaign- particularly in the wake of the Prop 8 loss- will be an important moment in progressive and LGBT politics. If they win, their side is batting 1.000 on marriage ballot votes since 2004. That's critical for the haters to keep receiving support and funding from the right-wing. Our side will also be severely demoralized after this and Prop 8. If we win, we preserve the rights of Mainer families and have an important victory to take to the bank. We have to win.
That's why I'm writing tonight, using this tool, to ask them to support a campaign that will affect us all. And you'll support quality ads and what I and many colleagues know to be a very good campaign staff. I hope you'll join me.
Our campaign to hold Glenn Beck accountable for his race-baiting and fear-mongering has been a great success, with 62 advertisers making it clear that they don't want their brands linked to Beck's vile rhetoric. Up until now, however, there's been a question of what the real consequences are for Beck and for Fox, especially as Beck's ratings have soared. It's starting to become clear.
Today, we're announcing that Glenn Beck's show has lost over 50% of its advertising dollars since just before our campaign started. From our press release about the news:
The advertising boycott of Glenn Beck has cost the controversial host over half of his estimated advertising revenue since it was launched by ColorOfChange.org a month ago. This according to data analyzed from industry sources.
Estimated advertising revenue [the total amount of advertising money being spent during a block of commercial time for a program] was collected on a week-by-week basis for a period of two months. According to the data collected, the amount of money spent by national advertisers on Beck's program per week was at its highest at approximately $1,060,000, for the week ending August 2, 2009. ColorOfChange.org launched their campaign at the end of that week and since then, 62 advertisers have distanced themselves from Beck. Data collected for the week ending September 6, 2009 shows Beck's estimated ad revenue at $492,000, equal to a loss of $568,000.
"Fox News Channel has consistently claimed they haven't lost revenue as advertisers abandon Glenn Beck, but the numbers prove otherwise," said James Rucker, Executive Director of ColorOfChange.org. "Fox News Channel has a limited amount of ad positions. If 62 companies refuse to run ads on two of their 24 hours of programming, they are losing inventory. No matter how high Beck's ratings have been lately, advertisers still see Beck as toxic and don't want him associated with their brands. There is no way that Fox News Channel is making the money they should be making with Glenn Beck."
Our campaign is working. Respectable companies don't want to be associated with Beck or support his show with their dollars. It's resulting in a major loss of funding for his show, and at the same time making it clear that Beck's race-baiting and fear-mongering are far outside the mainstream.
The longer Beck stays isolated, the more of a problem he'll be for Fox, and the less he'll be able to spread his lies and distortions. If we can keep the pressure on, Fox will have to make a choice: 1) drop Beck because it doesn't make business sense to keep him; or 2) communicate to the world that they're so intent on providing a platform for race-baiting and fear-mongering that they don't care if they lose money (a serious problem for a public company like News Corporation, the owner of Fox).
Thanks for everything you've done to make this effort a success -- none of it could have happened without the more than 200,000 of you who have stepped up to be a part of this campaign. More than ever, it's time to keep the pressure on. You can help by joining us in thanking the advertisers that have stopped supporting Glenn Beck, and calling on those whose ads are still running on his show to follow suit.
Watching the Glenn Beck show this past month, one might have assumed that Van Jones had assaulted Beck, insulted his wife, and stolen his kids' lunch money. Beck devoted time on a whopping 16 shows to crafting a distorted, despicable portrait of Van that few who know him would recognize. As political smears go, it was as serious as it gets.
But make no mistake: this attack was not about Van Jones. Beck, in league with big business groups, is seeking to derail the President's progressive agenda, and taking out Van became the vehicle for undermining clean energy and green jobs.
There was another, more personal motivation too. Beck was trying to change the subject from the previous week, when headlines were dominated by dozens of major advertisers dropping his show. Beck had no choice but to up the ante, and at the same time indirectly take on the group responsible for his shrinking ad roster. His distortions not surprisingly found purchase on other Fox News shows, spread to the mainstream media, and rather than let this circus distract from the relaunch of health care and the rest of the President's agenda, Van chose to fall on his sword.
In the fallout, one thing is certain: wherever Van decides to go from here he will be a force. But now that he has left the White House, it's time to change the subject back to Beck.
As I wait for Obama to give his speech to the joint houses of Congress tonight, I am seeing ads all over the place pushing every possible view on reforming health care. I've seen late-night ads by independent (although obviously right-wingnut) organizations pushing every lie that has been raised on Health Care Reform, from Death Panels to to a statement that the majority of Americans are happy with what they've got. I've seen the AARP come out pushing reform in Health Care and not to shy away from changes that have to be made.
STATE BLOGS
So I'm back on the ground in Maine helping the online team. Things are a little intense, so a few quick bullet points:
