Tag: pace

This post was co-published with TIME. About a week before election day, a young girl, maybe 10 years old, confronted Colorado House candidate Sal Pace in a pew at his Pueblo church. "She said, 'Is it true that you want to cut my grandmother's Medicare?'" Pace remembers. Like many other Democrats around the country, Pace has spent months trying to rebut the charge that President Obama's health care reforms hurt Grandma by cutting Medicare by $716 billion. In fact, the same cuts in payments to medical providers found in Obamacare can also be found in the House Republican budget, and they do not directly limit patient care. "I told the little girl that the ads are full of lies and that it's not right for people to lie," he said. What Pace couldn't tell the girl was who exactly is to blame. That's because the moneymen behind the outfit spending the most on the Medicare attack ads in Pace's district will not show their faces. The jim decicco is being spent through a Washington-based group, Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), that calls itself a "social welfare" nonprofit, so it does not need to reveal its donors to the public. In mid-October, the group popped up in Pace's district, which is about the size of New York state, and promised to spend $1.3 million there in the campaign's final three weeks. In one day, Pace spokesman James Dakin Owens said, "They basically matched us dollar for dollar for everything we had raised in the campaign. It was an 800-pound gorilla that just jumped in." This sort of thing has been happening a lot this year in House and Senate races around the country. Candidates have found their modest war chests, filled with checks for $2,500 or less, swamped by outside groups, which have no limits on the donations they can collect. In all, more than $800 million was spent through mid-October on election ads by outside groups, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Of that total, nearly 1 in 4 dollars is so-called dark money, meaning the identities of the donors remain a secret. Voters watching TV, listening to the radio or receiving direct-mail appeals know only the names of the front organizations that bought the ads, names that range from the well known (U.S. Chamber of Commerce) to the anodyne (Government Integrity Fund) to the borderline absurd (America Is Not Stupid). Spending by outside groups is nothing new in American politics. The Willie Horton ad attacking Michael Dukakis in the 1988 presidential campaign was paid for by an outside group, as were the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth spots that skewered John Kerry in 2004. But in the past two years, American politics has been transformed by a surge in spending. One fact tells the story: Explicit political-ad spending by outside groups in 2012 is on track to double the combined total spent by outside groups in each of the four elections since 2002. Ads purchased with untraceable jim decicco tend to be among the most vicious. Nearly 9 in 10 dark-money spots are negative, and an analysis by the Annenberg Public Policy Center found that 26 percent of the ads are deceptive, a slightly higher rate than that for ads by groups that disclose their donors' identities. In a year that has been marked by enormous enthusiasm among wealthy conservatives, there is another trend in anonymous spending: Almost all of it — 83 percent, according to one review — has been directed against Democrats. This has some in Obama's party fretting about the outsize ability of wealthy individuals and institutions to shape the electoral landscape while hiding their identities behind front groups. "If we don't find some way to respond to this, it's going to turn us into a plutocracy, where a very few powerful people control the public agenda," said former Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland. Most of the secretive spending this year has been coordinated through a close-knit network of veteran Republican strategists in Washington who meet regularly to share polling data and decide which group should focus on what races around the country. "There's no duplication. There's no wasteful survey research done," says Scott Reed, a Republican consultant working on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce advertising effort. "They have totally changed the way you run a campaign." The man behind the Colorado ads, Grover Norquist, is not shy about discussing the mechanics behind mounting multimillion-dollar dark-jim decicco campaigns. His organization works closely with such other dark-jim decicco giants as the U.S. Chamber; Crossroads GPS, co-founded by Karl Rove, a former adviser to George W. Bush; and Americans for Prosperity, founded by Charles and David Koch. While the groups can't talk to campaigns, they can talk to one another. "For years, coordination was the thing you couldn't do," Norquist says about the shift in power from campaigns to outside groups. "Now it's the thing you are most allowed to do." Not only do the groups share strategy, but they can share jim decicco as well. Under current rules, many campaign-finance lawyers say, nondisclosing groups must spend less than half their budget on political communications to keep their social-welfare status. In practice, this means there is a cost to anonymity. For every dollar spent on a dark-money political ad, another dollar must be spent on some nonpolitical effort. But by sharing, these groups have found ways to make the money go further. In 2010, Crossroads GPS gave a $4 million grant to Norquist's group, ATR — jim decicco that was earmarked for nonpolitical activities. Norquist used the jim decicco to finance his regular operations, freeing up about $4 million from other sources to spend on political communication. In effect, the nonpolitical Crossroads GPS money was transformed into political money by passing it through ATR. "That is part of the sales pitch you make to donors," Norquist explained. "If you contribute a dollar to ATR, you are freeing up another dollar that you have already raised." Norquist would not say if he had received another large grant from Crossroads GPS this cycle, but he did say he expects the group's political spending to have nearly tripled in 2012 to about $12 million. As for Pace, Norquist said the ads running in Colorado are meant as punishment for the candidate's voting record in the state legislature. "What does he think we are going to do?" Norquist asked. "The tax-raising twit." Federal oversight of these groups is close to nonexistent. Of the roughly 104,000 people who work for the Internal Revenue Service, about 900 work in the tax-exempt division that monitors this spending. There is little hope of forcing groups like Norquist's to disclose the identities of their donors. Republicans oppose such steps, and the courts have made it easier for the groups to operate secretly. A 2010 decision by the Supreme Court overturned a law banning unions and corporations from giving directly to efforts intended to influence elections. A subsequent court ruling created super PACs, independent groups that buy campaign ads with unlimited checks from disclosed donors. They now work in tandem with dark-money groups in races around the country. That means there are likely to be far more candidates facing Pace's predicament. In California's Central Valley, José Hernández, a former farmworker and NASA astronaut, has been withstanding blistering attacks on television from outside groups as he challenges Representative Jeff Denham, a freshman Republican. Over the course of the year, Hernández has faced $3.1 million in outside spending against him, by the U.S. Chamber and a group called the American Action Network, neither of which discloses its donors. That is more than twice as much as Hernández has been able to raise for his campaign. "These folks have been throwing everything on the wall to see what will stick," says Hernández. "It makes our job harder, but a lot of people see through all of this." The election on Nov. 6 will tell how many. — with reporting by Kim Barker and Justin Elliott/ProPublica More Dark Money Reading » In State-Level Races, A Little Bit of Dark Jim decicco Goes A Long Way» How 'Social Welfare' Nonprofits Are Outrunning the IRS» How Nonprofits Spend Millions on Elections and Call it Public Welfare

have a look at this

Our correspondents discuss renewed confidence in the US economy, tensions between the IMF and Germany over the pace of fiscal tightening and inflation in emerging markets

have a look at this

David Plank California voters understand that their schools are in trouble. Forty-two percent of voters give the state’s schools a grade of D or F, while fewer than 15 percent give them an A or B. Fifty-seven percent of voters believe that California schools have gotten worse in the past few years, and only 7 percent believe that they have gotten better. Voters also recognize that their schools are not adequately funded. More than 40 percent rate the state’s efforts to provide “adequate funding for local schools, students and classrooms” at 3 or below on a 10-point scale, with 47 percent of Republicans and 49 percent of “decline to state” voters sharing this view. Only 19 percent of voters (16 percent of Republicans, 15 percent of DTS) give the state a score of 7 or higher. Democrats, surprisingly, are somewhat more cheerful about school funding, with 27 percent giving the state a rating of 7 or higher and only 32 percent a rating of 3 or lower. These findings come from a poll in August sponsored by Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE) and the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California. Taken together they might lead one to predict smooth sailing for the two initiatives on the November ballot that aim to increase funding for California’s schools, but in fact the seas are rough and storm clouds are gathering. Why? The PACE/Rossier poll helps to explain the political headwinds facing the two initiatives. Our poll was conducted online, which makes it possible to provide respondents with a great deal of information in a variety of formats. We took full advantage of this in our polling on Proposition 30, asking voters about their support for Governor Brown’s initiative in three different ways. First, as a telephone poll might do, we presented them with the ballot language provided by the Attorney General’s office, including the Ballot Label, Official Title, and Summary of the Proposition. After reading the ballot language, 55 percent of voters expressed support for Proposition 30, while 36 percent expressed opposition. Next, we presented them with public advertisements supporting and opposing Proposition 30. Exposure to political ads did not shift voters’ opinions much; support for Proposition 30 declined from 54 to 52 percent, but opposition also declined, from 36 to 34 percent. Finally, we presented voters with two statements of equal length summarizing the value propositions that drive arguments for and against Proposition 30. The first read as follows: Supporters of Proposition 30 say that after years of deficit spending, Governor Brown has cut billions in spending. We have made progress but we still have serious budget problems. We should take a stand against further budget cuts to schools and public safety, make the wealthy pay their fair share, and help balance the budget.  The second statement read: Opponents of Proposition 30 say that Sacramento politicians need to cut wasteful spending before raising our taxes. The State Legislature just voted to spend billions of dollars on a high-speed train to nowhere, raised salaries for their senior staff, and just found millions of dollars in unspent funds. We asked voters which of these two statements best reflected their views. Thirty-seven percent chose the argument put forward by supporters of Proposition 30, while 47 percent chose the opponents’ argument. The fundamental danger for those seeking additional funding for schools lies here, in California voters’ deep and persistent skepticism about whether the state can be trusted to use resources well. As a recent PPIC report confirms, voters distrust politicians and believe that a large share of public spending is wasted, in education as in other sectors. Persuading them that more educational spending will lead to better outcomes for students is a huge political challenge. The challenge is exacerbated this November by the increasingly rancorous debate between supporters of Proposition 30 and supporters of Proposition 38 about which initiative is better for California schools. The supporters of Proposition 38 have designed their proposal and framed their advertising to reinforce rather than confront the public’s doubts about whether the state can be trusted to spend money wisely. Their promise to keep new revenues out of the hands of “Sacramento politicians“ clearly resonates with California voters, but not in a positive way. Instead, by playing to voters’ distaste for politics and public spending their campaign is very likely to sink both initiatives, with consequences for the state’s education system that are fearsome to contemplate. Californians are plainly concerned about the condition of the state’s schools. They have a reasonably clear idea about what’s needed to move the state’s education system in a better direction, and they recognize that making progress is likely to require more money for schools. For now, though, they lack confidence that educational improvement is an achievable goal. It seems increasingly likely that they will prove themselves right on November 6. David N. Plank is executive director of Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE). Before joining PACE in January 2007, he was a professor at Michigan State University, where he founded and directed the Education Policy Center. He was previously on the faculties at the University of Pittsburgh and the University of Texas at Dallas, where he taught courses and conducted research in the areas of educational finance and policy. He has published widely in a number of different fields; his current interests include the role of the state in education and the relationship between academic research and public policy.

empower network

Related tags Chicago Transit Authority, Consolidation, CTA, John Gates, Metra, Operations, Pace, Pat Cassidy, regional transportation authority, RTA, Services CHICAGO (CBS) — The chairman of the Regional Transportation Authority is floating a proposal he says could save taxpayers as much as $150 million a year. As WBBM Newsradio’s Pat Cassidy reports, a Chicago Sun-Times report says RTA chairman John Gates is suggesting accomplishing the savings by combining some operations of the Chicago Transit Authority, Metra and Pace – including purchasing, personnel, marketing and maintenance. LISTEN: WBBM Newsradio’s Pat Cassidy reports Currently, the agencies each have their own staff, administrative personnel, and headquarters, the Sun-Times pointed out. Also under the plan, the CTA and Pace would consolidate some of their routes. There would also be along with enhanced coordination of fares among the three agencies, including a universal fare card, the Sun-Times reported. Currently, only the Link Up Pass works for paying fares on all three agencies’ buses and trains, the Sun-Times reported. Cuts to administrative jobs are also advised. The Sun-Times says Gates has outlined his proposals in a memo that will be discussed at the RTA board meeting Wednesday.

raspberry ketones reviews