Siddhartha Mahanta

Editorial Fellow

Siddhartha came to Mother Jones from the National Journal, where he produced videos for the web and wrote for the magazine. He's also worked for the PBS NewsHour, freelanced for Al Jazeera English, and grew up in Sugar Land, Texas.

Get my RSS | Follow @sidhubaba

Private Equity's New Champion

—By Siddhartha Mahanta

| Mon Jan. 30, 2012 1:40 PM PST

Former private equity executive and current GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

The rapidly increasing chance that former private equity executive Mitt Romney will be the GOP nominee for president hasn't been all wonderful for the private equity industry. That's because voters are growing hip to just how much investors and money managers at firms like Bain Capital—the private equity firm Romney co-founded—actually make, and the elaborate tax gimmicks that help them avoid paying what's arguably their fair share. Whether that added scrutiny translates into tax reform is anyone's guess. But the financial industry sees the writing on the wall, and is manning its defenses.

[Read more in the MoJo blog]

Advertise on MotherJones.com

How Bain's Lobbying Saved Mitt Millions

Private equity titans like Bain Capital used K Street to preserve the GOP front-runner's favorite—and most lucrative—tax loophole.

—By Siddhartha Mahanta

| Mon Jan. 30, 2012 4:00 AM PST

With the sting of defeat in the South Carolina primary still fresh at last week's Republican presidential debate in Tampa, Mitt Romney slammed Newt Gingrich for his record as a consultant—or "historian," in Newt-speak—for government mortgage-backer Freddie Mac.

But perhaps Romney should think twice before setting his sights on the former speaker's lobbying-related past. That's because the ex-governor has benefited handsomely from the influence-peddling of Bain Capital, the private equity firm he cofounded in 1983. Though he's been gone from Bain for over a decade, Romney continues to rake in millions from accounts with the firm—and in 2007, he took Bain's side in a key lobbying battle with Washington—one that saved him millions of dollars.

[Read the full article]

Romney's Crony Capitalism

—By Siddhartha Mahanta

| Mon Jan. 23, 2012 8:57 PM PST

In Monday night's NBC debate, Mitt Romney continued to peddle the myth that he's a titan of free enterprise—the sort of master of the private sector who has never once benefited from tax breaks or government subsidies.

Yet Romney's time at Bain Capital was ridden with numerous episodes of Bain-acquired companies leaning heavily on state tax packages, as the Los Angeles Times reported just a few weeks ago:

Bain Capital began looking at investing in the steel start-up [called Steel Dynamics] in late 1993. At the time, Steel Dynamics was weighing where to locate its first plant, based in part on which region offered the best tax incentives. In June 1994, Bain put $18.2 million into Steel Dynamics, making it the largest domestic equity holder. It sold its stake five years later for $104 million, a return of more than $85 million.

As Bain made its investment, the state and county pledged $37 million in subsidies and grants for the $385-million plant project. The county also levied a new income tax to finance infrastructure improvements to benefit the steel mill over the heated objections of some county residents. . . .

Another steel company in which Bain invested, GS Industries, went bankrupt in 2001, causing more than 700 workers to lose their jobs, health insurance and a part of their pensions. Before going under, the company paid large dividends to Bain partners and expanded its Kansas City plant with the help of tax subsidies. It also sought a $50-million federal loan guarantee.

"This is corporate welfare," said Tad DeHaven, a budget analyst with the Washington-based Cato Institute, which encourages free-market economic policies. DeHaven, who is familiar with corporate tax subsidies in Indiana and other states, called the incentives Steel Dynamics received "an example of the government stepping into the marketplace, picking winners and losers, providing profits to business owners and leaving taxpayers stuck with the bill."

On the campaign trail, Romney's made a habit of denouncing "crony capitalism" and government intervention in the private sector. He's tried to convince Republican voters that he's never engaged in it, doesn't like it, and that real American businessmen won't practice it.

But there's plenty of evidence in Romney's record that the fine art of crony capitalism is a crucial piece of making it big in the sort-of free market. In other words: it's part of doing business in a democracy.

SOPA Aftermath: Winners and Losers

It's all over but the shouting. Who won 2012's big online-privacy fight—and who came out hurting?

—By Nick Baumann and Siddhartha Mahanta

| Mon Jan. 23, 2012 4:00 AM PST

Former Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), now the chairman of the Motion Picture Association of America, was one of the biggest losers in the SOPA/PIPA intellectual-property fight.

Just a few weeks ago, it seemed certain that the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA) would soon become law, allowing US courts to take drastic measures to punish alleged copyright infringers, including blocking access to entire websites. Some of Washington's most powerful people and lobbying groups were lining up behind the bills, and both the House and the Senate were moving towards passage.

Now, in the wake of a tech industry and netroots uprising and an internet blackout last Wednesday, passage of either law seems all but impossible.

Last week, we explained how it all happened and highlighted the best SOPA-related humor. Here's who won—and who got caught on the wrong side of the most ferocious debate of a young 2012.

WINNERS

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif):

The chair of the House oversight committee was picked for the post to be a thorn in President Obama's side. But in this fight, Issa was an early and outspoken opponent of SOPA, and the White House eventually ended up agreeing with him. Issa is also the lead sponsor of the OPEN Act, which the tech industry lobbying group Net Coalition has put forward as a SOPA alternative. In fact, Wednesday's internet blackout was originally timed to coincide with Issa's hearing on SOPA. Issa canceled the hearing after support for the bill collapsed over the weekend of January 14-15, apparently to lessen the embarrassment the affair was causing his fellow Republicans.

Issa's a tech millionaire himself—he founded the car alarm company Direct Electronics and is one of the richest members of Congress, with a fortune estimated at over $200 million—and his views on tech issues often differ from his those of his colleagues. He picked the right side in this fight, and came out looking savvy, prescient, and pivotal.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.):

Wyden, unlike most of his colleagues in Congress, recognized that SOPA and PIPA granted the Justice Department broad, potentially crippling authority to crack down on allegedly infringing websites. He also understood that it threatened to ensnare small tech startups in expensive litigation at their infancy, and is sponsoring the Senate's version of the OPEN Act. "If you’re concerned about income equality…the internet is where you take on the moneyed interests," Wyden told the Washington Post on Friday. "The internet is the equalizer—the voice of the grassroots." No one on the Hill comes out of this fight in better shape.

Senate staffer Jayme White:

In Washington, committee staffers and legislative assistants can wield considerable influence on policy. Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, who chairs the Senate subcommittee on international trade, frequently relied on the counsel of the panel's staff director, Jayme White.

White's ability to fluently explain what's at stake in the SOPA/PIPA fight was readily apparent last Tuesday, when he spoke at an event hosted by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee. The staffer argued that the very existence of the bills is evidence that Washington is broken, and that the tech community's fingerprints must be on whatever new anti-piracy bill Congress draws up next. He also reminded the audience of the broader picture: that the United States sets the tone on free speech and civil liberties issues for the rest of the world. "What we do here creates international norms…what we do here would give foreign countries the license to replicate it," White said. In the wake of Wyden's big win on PIPA, expect White to continue playing a key role in future battles over tech legislation.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), the House minority leader:

Pelosi, who represents most of San Francisco, is a natural ally of the tech community. But it took courage for her to face down the entertainment industry (and Nevada Sen. Harry Reid, the Democratic leader in the Senate and a major supporter of SOPA and PIPA) in a year when she and Democrats need all the help they can get to recapture the House majority and put Pelosi back in the speaker's chair. The Dems may lose some entertainment industry donations thanks to Pelosi's stance, but could easily make up the loss with increased fundraising in Silicon Valley. Lots of members of Congress came over to the anti-SOPA side when the fight was already mostly over. But Pelosi spoke out against the bill in mid-November, before it had even appeared on most of her colleagues' radar screens.

Other winners:

The four remaining GOP presidential candidates, who all came out against the bill (to varying degrees) in Thursday night's debate, thus avoiding a problem they don't need right now.

LOSERS

Sens. Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif):

The two California senators were caught in an impossible position. Their state's two most important industries, Hollywood and Silicon Valley, were at each others' throats. Sen. Feinstein tried to set up a compromise meeting between both industries' bigwigs in December but was rebuffed. Boxer and Feinstein ultimately sided with the entertainment industry, but you can bet that they'd rather have not had to choose at all.

Tom Donohue and the US Chamber of Commerce:

The chamber, America's top big-business lobby, rarely loses fights in Washington. Donohue, who's run the chamber since 1997, was recently named the 10th-most powerful person in Washington by GQ. But the Chamber lined up on the entertainment industry's side in this fight, and it lost badly. The fight could also make it harder for the Chamber to land money from big web companies like Google and Facebook in the future, especially now that Yahoo has left the Chamber over its support for the bills.

Maura Corbett, a spokesperson for the tech interest group NetCoalition, says the Chamber must choose between the old economy—big banks and the entertainment industry—and the new economy. But the failure of the business group's unapologetic opposition "has proved that Washington isn't for sale. It's the most hopeful thing that has come out of Washington in a long time," Corbett says.

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the chairman of the House budget committee:

Ryan eventually came out against SOPA—but not until January 9, after momentum was starting to shift. More damaging then Ryan's late shift, however, was the online campaign waged against him. Ryan's aspiring 2012 opponent, Rob Zerban, raised tens of thousands of dollars through a Reddit campaign by denouncing Ryan's hemming and hawing on the legislation and pointing out that the Republican took nearly $300,000 from pro-SOPA donors. Republicans in Wisconsin's state Legislature have redrawn congressional district lines in an attempt to protect Ryan in November. But in a good year for Democrats, Ryan could still be vulnerable. Even if Zerban doesn't topple Ryan, the money Zerban has raised on the SOPA issue will certainly make the incumbent's reelection fight a lot more expensive.

President Barack Obama:

By coming out against SOPA and PIPA, the Obama administration may have made an enemy out of some very generous, very powerful friends. What might gall Obama's entertainment industry backers even more than his reversal, though, is its suddenness. In the months between SOPA's introduction last fall and the collapse of its momentum in mid-January, the White House gave no indications that Obama had any problem with the legislation. Then, out of the blue, the administration released a statement on January 14 saying that the proposals needed more work to gain the president's blessing. Now that the bills are effectively dead, some of the titans of the entertainment world are reportedly planning to retaliate by withholding financial support for Obama's reelection campaign. Well aware of this fissure, Republicans are poised to exploit it.

Until now, the Obama administration's policy on piracy has been unequivocal: Anything that encourages the violation of existing copyright law is bad. Laws that seek to curb piracy—no matter how draconian—are good. But the SOPA/PIPA battle throws that black-and-white view of copyright policy into chaos, exposing the fact that anti-piracy legislation in the age of the internet isn't just a simple matter of pulling down egregious websites and suing offending startups.

Former Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), chairman of the Motion Picture Association of America:

This was Chris Dodd's fight to lose. Dodd had allies like News Corp. and the Chamber of Commerce, and his own organization represents entertainment companies that are run by some of the Democratic party's most important donors. Coaxing these bills into law should have been easy. But as the broad bipartisan coalition backing the bills crumbled, Dodd proved unable or unwilling to broker a compromise, branding the successful January 18 web blackout as a mere stunt.

When the bills' collapse was final, Dodd told the New York Times he wanted President Obama to broker a deal between the tech and entertainment lobbies. But coming to the negotiating table after you're totally beaten just looks silly. The Times article also hinted that Dodd's inability to directly lobby lawmakers (he's prohibited from doing so for two years after leaving Congress) was one of the factors in the anti-piracy bills' defeat. If the studios believe that Dodd was hamstrung by congressional ethics laws, it could threaten his seat at the head of the MPAA even further. In his four decades in Washington, Dodd has never looked so weak.

Other losers:

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), the chairs of the Senate and House judiciary committees, respectively, for sponsoring the bills and shepherding them this far; the major television networks, for their lackluster coverage of the issue and occasional failure to disclose conflicts of interest; the AFL-CIO and Creative America (an anti-piracy lobbying group), for thinking that full-page ads in the Washington Post were the best way to respond to internet-based discontent with the bills.

Photo credits: James Berglie/ZUMA; J D Lasica/Flickr; Center for American Progress/Flickr; Public Citizen/Flickr; Senator Boxer/Flickr; Freedom to Marry/Flickr; MerrionStreet.ie/Flickr; Gage Skidmore/Flickr; The White House/Flickr; James Berglie/Zuma; Center for American Progress/Flickr; Talk Radio News/Flickr

Reid Caves on PIPA, For Now

—By Siddhartha Mahanta

| Fri Jan. 20, 2012 10:01 AM PST

Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) Pete Marovich/Zuma

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has postponed Tuesday's scheduled procedural vote on the controversial Protect IP Act, or PIPA. Here's his statement:

In light of recent events, I have decided to postpone Tuesday's vote on the PROTECT I.P. Act.

There is no reason that the legitimate issues raised by many about this bill cannot be resolved. Counterfeiting and piracy cost the American economy billions of dollars and thousands of jobs each year, with the movie industry alone supporting over 2.2 million jobs. We must take action to stop these illegal practices. We live in a country where people rightfully expect to be fairly compensated for a day's work, whether that person is a miner in the high desert of Nevada, an independent band in New York City, or a union worker on the back lots of a California movie studio.

I admire the work that Chairman Leahy has put into this bill. I encourage him to continue engaging with all stakeholders to forge a balance between protecting Americans' intellectual property, and maintaining openness and innovation on the internet. We made good progress through the discussions we've held in recent days, and I am optimistic that we can reach a compromise in the coming weeks.

Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R-Ky.) request to delay the vote and Rep. Lamar Smith's (R-Tex.) decision to postpone work on SOPA, PIPA's counterpart in the House, surely contributed to Reid's decision. The calculated retreats of a number of both bills' original co-sponsors and the blackout on Wednesday mattered, too.

So what happens next? Reid will probably continue his doomed quest for a non-existent compromise between content providers (Hollywood) and the tech community (Silicon Valley). Remember, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)—an original co-sponsor of PIPA whose state hosts both communities—tried and failed to broker a compromise between the two groups in December. Nothing that's happened since would improve the odds of a deal.

As last night's presidential debate showed, Republicans seem to understand that anti-SOPA/PIPA sentiment aligns rather handsomely with conservative values like free speech, fewer regulations, and less government. And the GOP knows full well that Hollywood—traditionally a core, generous constituency for Democrats—will be none too pleased with Reid's decision to bow before the might of web geekdom.

For Republicans, opposing SOPA is a win/win. The only question is why they didn't understand that earlier.

Romney Hits Obama on Solyndra, But Bain Got Government Subsidies, Too

—By Siddhartha Mahanta

| Thu Jan. 19, 2012 7:47 PM PST

Mitt, doin' work. Brian Cahn/Zuma

At Thursday night's CNN debate, Mitt Romney attacked the Obama administration's loan guarantees for the now-bankrupt solar panel manufacturer Solyndra as a prime instance of the government picking winners and losers in business, and losing big. But Bain Capital, the private equity firm Romney founded, frequently received similar help from state governments, including subsidies and tax breaks. The subsidy-tracking folks over at Good Jobs First compiled a vast database on just how much states have bailed out companies that were bought and—in a number of cases—gutted by Bain Capital. Some of the highlights:

Sealy. A year after the 1997 buyout of this leading mattress company by Bain and other private equity firms, Sealy received $600,000 from state and local authorities in North Carolina to move its corporate offices, a research center and a manufacturing plant from Ohio (Greensboro News & Record, March 31, 1998). In 2004 Bain and its partners sold Sealy to another private equity group.

GS Industries. In 1996 American Iron Reduction LLC, a joint venture of GS Industries (which had been taken private by Bain in 1993) and Birmingham Steel, sought some $20 million in tax breaks in connection with its plan to build a plant in Louisiana’s St. James Parish (Baton Rouge Advocate, April 6, 1996). As the United Steelworkers union noted recently, GS Industries later applied for a federal loan guarantee, but before the deal could be implemented the company went bankrupt.

AMC Entertainment. After being promised more than $40 million in subsidies, this movie chain (bought in 2004 by Bain and other private equity firms) agreed to move its headquarters from downtown Kansas City, Missouri to a nearby suburb across the state line in Kansas. The deal was criticized as an egregious case of taxpayer-financed sprawl. [Even though Romney left Bain in 1999, he's continued reaping millions in lightly taxed investment income since then.]

As for the office supply store Staples, a supposed success Romney frequently touts? In 1996, the company chose to move its distribution center to Maryland in exchange for a healthy $4.2 million subsidy deal.

Romney says that President Obama's record of aiding private enterprise proves the president doesn't have a clue about how capitalism works—that, in the Obama's view, capitalism necessarily relies on the generosity of government largesse. But if we're to judge Romney's understanding of capitalism based on how he ran the show at Bain, it's tough to see how business success doesn't often rely on government help.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Debate Night: Showdown in South Carolina

With just one more day of campaigning before South Carolina voters head to the polls, the remaining GOP candidates faced off in another—perhaps final—debate.

—By the Mother Jones news team

| Thu Jan. 19, 2012 6:00 PM PST

Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney holds a campaign rally at Winthorp University in Rock Hill, South Carolina, January 18, 2012. Dennis Van Tine/UPPA/Zuma

Thursday night, with the crucial South Carolina primary looming on Saturday, the four remaining major candidates for the Republican presidential nomination (Rick Perry and Jon Huntsman dropped out this week) gathered in Charleston for what could be the final GOP primary debate. Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, who fought ex-Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum to a tie in Iowa and won handily in New Hampshire, could conceivably lock up the nomination if he wins big in South Carolina. If that happens, it won't be because Romney will have a big lead in the delegate race—he won't—but because a third consecutive first-place finish will make it difficult for the other candidates to continue to raise money. That's why Romney hasn't yet agreed to attend the two GOP debates scheduled for next week—he may not need to.

On the other hand, Newt Gingrich has been surging in the Palmetto State polls, and could conceivably win on Saturday despite reports that emerged on Thursday that he sought an "open marriage" with his second wife, Marianne. And Ron Paul and Santorum are still in the race, too.

Here's a rundown of all the action from Thursday night's debate. Jump to all the best tweets on the debate, as they unfolded in real-time, from the MoJo crew and other political junkies.

Jeff Siner/Charlotte Observer/Zuma

Romney Gets Booed For Holding Back His Tax Returns

—By Adam Serwer

Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney has faced some tough questions about his taxes since telling reporters on Tuesday that he pays "close to 15 percent" of his income to the IRS—a lower rate than many Americans who don't have the GOP front-runner's fortune, which is estimated to be as high as a quarter-billion dollars. If the booing at Thursday night's debate is any indication, Romney remains vulnerable on the tax issue, even among Republican primary voters.

"[Why shouldn't] the people of South Carolina, before the election see last year's return?" CNN's John King asked the ex-governor.

"Because I want to make sure that I beat President Obama, and every time we release things, drip by drip, the Democrats come out with another array of attacks," Romney responded. "If I'm the nominee, I'll put these out at one time, so we'll have one discussion of all of this."

When King pointed out that Mitt's father George Romney released twelve years of tax returns when running for president and asked Mitt if he would follow his father's example, the candidate chuckled awkwardly before saying, "Maybe, I don't know how many returns I'll release."

At that point, Romney had to pause for parts of the South Carolina audience to stop heckling and booing him. Then he recovered with what's likely to be a common refrain in the general election if the ex-governor wins the nomination. "I'm not going to apologize for being successful," Romney said, and the audience cheered.

The Obama administration offered a tax proposal last year that would have made the wealthy pay a larger share of their income. The proposal was dubbed "The Buffet Rule," after wealthy investor Warren Buffett, who said that some of his employees pay lower tax rates than he does. At the time, Democrats salivated at the possiblity that Romney might also be paying a lower effective tax rate than people who don't own more than one house, even as he's proposing even larger tax cuts for the well-off. With most Americans still struggling financially, voters might not be as receptive to a super-wealthy politician asking them to bear a larger share of the tax burden so that he and other wealthy Americans can pay less.

There's also the possibility that there's some sort of major scandal lurking in Romney's financial history that could sink his chances in the general election.

Newt Gingrich, who released his tax returns Thursday evening, wasn't shy about raising the possibility.

"If there’s anything in there thats going to help us lose the election we should know before he wins the nomination," Gingrich said. "If there’s nothing in there why not release it?"

Santorum's Dubious Medicaid Horror Story

Gage Skidmore/Wikimedia

—By Tim Murphy

At Thursday's GOP presidential debate in Charleston, Rick Santorum pulled out what he thought was the perfect anecdote for bureaucratic overreach. As he explained it, he'd talked to a state health official in Iowa and been informed that the state had actually been fined by the federal government because it didn't cover enough people under Medicaid. It was an example of well-intentioned big government gone bad and passing the burden onto a cash-strapped state. But was it true?

As it happens, ABC's Huma Khan looked into this when Santorum first brought it up earlier in January:

First, there is no "Department of Public Welfare" in Iowa, as Santorum stated. It’s the Department of Human Services that disburses Medicaid grants.

Second, it is unclear to what "fine" Santorum was referring. Iowa, like other states, receives federal reimbursement for the money it disburses in Medicaid fees. There is no quota system or target that the state has to meet in order to be eligible for federal money. The amount of money that each state receives is dependent on its economy.

"The formula is based on how well that state is doing economically and since Iowa is improving its economic status, we are soon to lose a couple percentage points," said Roger Munns, a spokesman for the Iowa Department of Human Services. "This is not a punishment. This is a recognition that Iowa’s economy is improving relative to other states."

So: Not exactly the nightmare scenario Santorum warned us of. But it could be worse; when Michele Bachmann wanted an anonymous expert to back up her allegation that under Obamacare, IRS agents would be forced to approve every medical procedure, she claimed to have heard it first-hand from a seven-foot-tall doctor.

Romney Says "I Didn't Inherit Money From My Parents." Really?

Mitt Romney/Flickr

—By Nick Baumann

At Thursday night's Republican primary debate on CNN, Mitt Romney told the audience he "didn't inherit money from my parents." Romney's dad, George Romney, was the CEO of the American Motors Company and governor of Michigan during the 1960s, so it's hard to believe he didn't have money to bequeath his son Mitt. As it happens, the younger Romney explained what happened to his inheritance in more detail in an interview with Reuters in December [emphasis added]:

"What I got from my parents when they passed away I gave away to charity and to my kids. And so what I’ve earned has been earned through my education, my values, living in the greatest country in the world, through some luck and through hard work," he said.

Passing your inheritance on to your children is not the same as not inheriting money at all. And it actually makes me a bit curious: a common estate-tax reduction strategy known as a dynasty trust relies on skipping generations. Did Romney pass on his inheritance to his kids for tax reasons? It's hard to know without seeing his tax returns—and that's another reason why he should release them.

Romney Hits Obama on Solyndra, But Bain Got Government Subsidies, Too

—By Siddhartha Mahanta

Sealy. A year after the 1997 buyout of this leading mattress company by Bain and other private equity firms, Sealy received $600,000 from state and local authorities in North Carolina to move its corporate offices, a research center and a manufacturing plant from Ohio (Greensboro News & Record, March 31, 1998). In 2004 Bain and its partners sold Sealy to another private equity group.

GS Industries. In 1996 American Iron Reduction LLC, a joint venture of GS Industries (which had been taken private by Bain in 1993) and Birmingham Steel, sought some $20 million in tax breaks in connection with its plan to build a plant in Louisiana’s St. James Parish (Baton Rouge Advocate, April 6, 1996). As the United Steelworkers union noted recently, GS Industries later applied for a federal loan guarantee, but before the deal could be implemented the company went bankrupt.

AMC Entertainment. After being promised more than $40 million in subsidies, this movie chain (bought in 2004 by Bain and other private equity firms) agreed to move its headquarters from downtown Kansas City, Missouri to a nearby suburb across the state line in Kansas. The deal was criticized as an egregious case of taxpayer-financed sprawl. [Even though Romney left Bain in 1999, he's continued reaping millions in lightly taxed investment income since then.]

10:05 ET: That's a wrap folks. Read from the bottom up for all over our live-tweet coverage of the South Carolina showdown.

No game-changer in this debate. If Newt surging, it could continue. Mitt didn't screw up. Santorum was strong. Paul was Paul.
— David Corn (@DavidCornDC) January 20, 2012

On abortion:

Shorter Ron Paul: A woman's body is like a house, and abortion is like burgling that house. #wombwithaview
— AdamSerwer (@AdamSerwer) January 20, 2012

Shorter GOP candidates: We're so anti-choice, we'd cut funding for coat hangers.
— AdamSerwer (@AdamSerwer) January 20, 2012

Oh my goodness, a clash of memes. Big government is bad. But big government should outlaw abortion. #cnndebate
— David Corn (@DavidCornDC) January 20, 2012

Here's an article about what life was like "before the age of abortion":bit.ly/9x6pr5
— Clara Jeffery (@ClaraJeffery) January 20, 2012

On immigration:

We're going to outsource guest worker program to Visa or American Express? #puns #thinkaboutit
— Clara Jeffery (@ClaraJeffery) January 20, 2012

I love Newt's local draft-board idea. No opportunity for abuse & favortism there. Sounds like Cuba's neighborhood watch program. #cnndebate
— David Corn (@DavidCornDC) January 20, 2012

SOPA, etc.

Weird. Santorum doesn't like the idea of "anything goes" on the Internet. I'll google his name and figure out why
— daveweigel (@daveweigel) January 20, 2012

Here's how Newt Gingrich saved porn in the Communications Decency Act: bit.ly/uJyhP6
— Tim Murphy (@timothypmurphy) January 20, 2012

Foreign affairs, anyone?

Hey @JohnKingCNN: Can you ask them about the Euro? #CNNdebate
— Clara Jeffery (@ClaraJeffery) January 20, 2012

Romney fields the dreaded tax-returns question:

Romney, you're putting off tax returns until April so you can make sure they're up to snuff. Care to share last year's? #CNNdebate
— Gov. Buddy Roemer (@BuddyRoemer) January 20, 2012

Wait, Romney just got booed? Did he compliment a gay soldier or say something from science? #cnndebate
— James Poniewozik (@poniewozik) January 20, 2012

King: Why won't you release your tax returns like your father? Mitt: Chuckles, "Maybe." Gets booed.
— AdamSerwer (@AdamSerwer) January 20, 2012

FACT: this was once one of @MittRomney's houses. aol.it/vJRGh4 #RealStreets #CNNdebate
— Greg Greene (@ggreeneva) January 20, 2012

Mitt describes himself as "living in the real streets of America." #Romneyraps #STREETZ
— AdamSerwer (@AdamSerwer) January 20, 2012

Romney has a Perry-esque moment, his mouth open but nothing coming out.

Romney was buffering for a minute there.
— Ben Dimiero (@bendimiero) January 20, 2012

Santorum and Gingrich go at it.

Santorum with a surprisingly accurate summation of Newt.
— Charles Homans (@chashomans) January 20, 2012

"Grandiosity has never been a problem with Newt Gingrich," Santorum says. Fact-o-meter: True!
— Tim Murphy (@timothypmurphy) January 20, 2012

The Ron Paul sideshow:

When Rob Paul is talking, it's A) a great time to catch up on email; B) take bathroom break; C) order pizza; D) all the above? #CNNdebate
— Mark Follman (@markfollman) January 20, 2012

#RonPaulFact: in Appalachia in the 60s, everyone had great health care.
— David Corn (@DavidCornDC) January 20, 2012

Ron Paul: in the 60s with no govt in health care, there was nobody "out in the streets" who went without medical care.//Truly demented
— David Corn (@DavidCornDC) January 20, 2012

"Footsie"?

Romney shook after Santorum accuses him and Gingrich of "playing footsie" with the left.
— AdamSerwer (@AdamSerwer) January 20, 2012

Not really surprising that Santorum disapproves of footsie. It's not the missionary position.
— NickBaumann (@NickBaumann) January 20, 2012

Newt loves kids!

#Gingrich: Being on parents' insurance in your mid-20's is like still living at home. Seems unaware one might have job but no insurance.
— Amy Davidson (@tnyCloseRead) January 20, 2012

This Newt argument about kids under 26 is the kind of argument you make if you're not expecting anyone under 26 to vote for you.
— Tim Murphy (@timothypmurphy) January 20, 2012

A grab bag of early highlights:

Why does Romney think South Carolina GOP primary voters care about non-discrimation on preexisting conditions?
— NickBaumann (@NickBaumann) January 20, 2012

Q for Romney: if free enterprise always works, how do you explain subprime crisis and 2008 crash? #cnndebate
— David Corn (@DavidCornDC) January 20, 2012

It took Santorum and Romney each about 2 nanoseconds to mention their respective wives. Newt neglected to do that in his opening. Hmmm
— David Corn (@DavidCornDC) January 20, 2012

The thing is, some of Newt's other denials about affairs—"Mother Jones smeared me"—did turn out to be 100% true.
— Tim Murphy (@timothypmurphy) January 20, 2012

CNN's John King opened the debate by asking Gingrich about the "open marriage" allegations. Gingrich said the allegations were false but slammed King and the media in general for bringing it up in the first place. But the New York Daily News' Josh Greenman has a point:

Mr. Gingrich, do you in retrospect believe the media should not have pursued the Bill Clinton 'improprieties' when he ran for President?
— Josh Greenman (@joshgreenman) January 20, 2012

Gingrich Ally Declares War on...Christians?

—By Siddhartha Mahanta

| Thu Jan. 19, 2012 3:05 PM PST

Newt prays, hard. Tracy Glantz/Zuma

With revelations of Newt Gingrich's zeal for the sanctity of open marriage now dominating the news cycle, the former House Speaker may soon need to consult a higher power to help him field the tough family values questions that South Carolina's bedrock conservative Republican voters are likely to ask him.

Luckily, Gingrich has someone much closer to home to help out: long-time friend Michael Youssef, an Atlanta-based televangelist who was just named the national co-chair of Gingrich's Faith Leaders Coalition. Youssef is an ardent pro-lifer, a virulent Islamophobe, and a gay-hater who has compared Mormonism to Islam (unfavorably).

It's unclear if Gingrich's people did all their homework on Youssef, who has a history of attacking not only Muslims and gay people, but also Presbyterians and Episcopalians. Via the People for the American Way, here's an excerpt from a column Youssef wrote for the American Family Association last January:

[Read more in the MoJo blog]

Dodd to Internet: You And Your Blackout Can Drop Dead

—By Siddhartha Mahanta

| Tue Jan. 17, 2012 4:00 PM PST

Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) James Berglie/Zuma

Netroots and tech industry pressure has dramatically slowed the progress of the Stop Online Piracy (SOPA) and Protect IP (PIPA) Acts, the sweeping anti-piracy bills backed by the lobbying might of the entertainment industry. As we wrote today, both SOPA and PIPA are on the ropes, thanks in part to a recent flurry of Internet activism. Tomorrow, a number of sites, including Reddit and Wikipedia, plan to "blackout" their sites in protest—i.e., go inactive. And this isn't just some wily fringe movement: late on Tuesday, Google also got into the mix, announcing that it will voice its opposition against the bills on its homepage tomorrow.

Former Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), now the CEO of the Motion Picture Association of America, is decidedly unamused:

Only days after the White House and chief sponsors of the legislation responded to the major concern expressed by opponents and then called for all parties to work cooperatively together, some technology business interests are resorting to stunts that punish their users or turn them into their corporate pawns, rather than coming to the table to find solutions to a problem that all now seem to agree is very real and damaging.

It is an irresponsible response and a disservice to people who rely on them for information and use their services. It is also an abuse of power given the freedoms these companies enjoy in the marketplace today. It’s a dangerous and troubling development when the platforms that serve as gateways to information intentionally skew the facts to incite their users in order to further their corporate interests.

A so-called "blackout" is yet another gimmick, albeit a dangerous one, designed to punish elected and administration officials who are working diligently to protect American jobs from foreign criminals.

It is our hope that the White House and the Congress will call on those who intend to stage this "blackout" to stop the hyperbole and PR stunts and engage in meaningful efforts to combat piracy."

The Cato Institute's Julian Sanchez, a prominent opponent of both bills, summarized Dodd's statement via Twitter, writing, "Shorter MPAA: If you screw with us, our vassals in Congress will be holding hearings on your 'abuse of power' (aka 'speech')."

Dodd's dismissal of the blackout as a "dangerous" "stunt" betrays one of Washington's most maddening blind spots. Huge portions of the Internet community have embraced a genuine act of protest—one that doesn't rely on deep-pocketed lobbyists on K Street. Whatever your thoughts on SOPA and PIPA, it's clear that millions of people will be affected by the blackout. This is far more than a mere stunt.

The Story Behind the SOPA Blackout

The entertainment industry usually gets its way in DC—but it was no match for Reddit, Wikipedia, and BoingBoing.

—By Siddhartha Mahanta and Nick Baumann

| Tue Jan. 17, 2012 4:00 AM PST

Google blacked out its logo on Wednesday in protest of two Hollywood-backed copyright bills pending in the US Congress.

Only two American industries have ever had the clout in Washington to force Congress to ban Wall Street from trading futures on their products. The first was onions—futures trading in no one's favorite root vegetable was banned in the 1950s after farmers protested that Chicago speculators were manipulating prices. The other ban is more recent: In 2010, at the urging of the Motion Picture Association of America, one of Capitol Hill's most powerful lobbies, Congress banned movie futures as part of the Dodd-Frank financial regulatory reform bill.

The big studios took on Wall Street—which isn't known for losing lobbying fights—and won. So this month, when all the big entertainment companies joined forces with Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform and the US Chamber of Commerce, the nation's foremost big business lobby, to fight for sweeping anti-piracy legislation, it was almost a foregone conclusion that they would get what they wanted.

Instead, Big Hollywood lost. Here's how it happened.

The bills that topped nearly every big entertainment company's legislative priority list in 2011 were called the Stop Online Piracy Act (in the House) and the Protect Intellectual Property Act (in the Senate)—SOPA and PIPA, for short. They would have allowed copyright owners to force websites they believed were infringing their content right off the internet—you could call it "shoot first and ask questions later" copyright enforcement. The law would even have allowed for allegedly infringing sites to be blocked from the Domain Name System, the internet's equivalent of a phone book—making it appear as if the blocked site was down or didn't exist. Entertainment companies loved it—finally, they had a truly powerful weapon to deploy against pirates. But tech companies and venture capitalists warned that the bills could increase costs and stifle innovation, forcing web companies to check every link on their sites—even ones posted by their users—to make sure they didn't lead to infringing content.

[Read the full article]