Mojo - November 2013

Watchdog: Grover Norquist's Group Misled IRS About Its 2012 Political Spending

An Americans for Tax Reform spokesman calls CREW's complaint "baseless" and "nonsense."

| Tue Nov. 19, 2013 5:31 PM EST
Grover Norquist.

Americans for Tax Reform, the conservative advocacy group run by activist Grover Norquist, plunged headlong into federal elections in 2012, urging voters in California, Colorado, and Ohio to oust Democratic lawmakers. In all, ATR told the Federal Election Commission that it spent nearly $16 million last year on independent expenditures—political ads urging voters to support or defeat a particular candidate that aren't coordinated with any candidates or parties.

Norquist's group recently submitted its 2012 tax filing to the IRS, detailing all its spending for last year. In that filing, ATR says it spent just $9.8 million on politics in 2012—a difference of some $6 million compared to what ATR told the FEC.

On Tuesday, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a nonpartisan watchdog group, seized on that discrepancy in a complaint filed with the IRS and Justice Department. CREW alleges that Norquist's group misled the IRS about the extent of its political spending.

ATR may have had reason to low-ball the political spending figures it reported to the IRS. Norquist's group is a 501(c)(4) nonprofit, also known as a social welfare organization. Under the tax law, 501(c)(4) nonprofits such as ATR—which do not have to disclose their donors—can wade into campaigns and elections but cannot spend a majority of their money on political activities. From only reading ATR's 2012 tax filing, the group appears to abide by that restriction: ATR reported spending a total of $30 million in 2012, only $9.8 million of which went toward politicking. No issue there.

But if ATR in fact spent nearly $16 million of its $30 million budget on politicking, as CREW claims it did, then that's a different story. "ATR's own IRS and FEC filings provide incontrovertible evidence that ATR is breaking the law," CREW executive director Melanie Sloan said in a statement. "If Al Capone could be nailed for tax violations, so can Grover Norquist."

ATR spokesman John Kartch says CREW's complaint is "baseless" and "nonsense." He added, "Americans for Tax Reform's reporting strictly abides by the definitions of political activity and political expenditures maintained by the FEC and IRS."

Read CREW's complaint against ATR:

 

This isn't the first time CREW has accused Norquist and ATR of misleading the IRS. In March 2012, the watchdog claimed that ATR failed to report to the IRS more than $2 million in political spending in 2010. (The group told the FEC it spent $4.2 million on independent expenditures, but it told the IRS its political outlays were just $1.85 million.) Neither the Justice Department nor the IRS has responded to CREW's 2012 complaint.

Nor is the ATR the only political group facing questions about its tax filings. The Center for Public Integrity recently reported that an anti-Obama nonprofit with ties to the Koch brothers, the American Energy Alliance, told the IRS it engaged in no "direct or indirect political campaign activities on behalf of or in opposition to candidates for public office" in 2012. Yet the group spent more than $1 million on TV ads in Virginia and Ohio last fall urging viewers to "vote no on Obama's failing energy policy." An American Energy Alliance spokesman said the ads were in no way political, but Marcus Owens, a former IRS official, said the group's tax filing "certainly raises a red flag."

Advertise on MotherJones.com

We're Still at War: Photo of the Day for November 19, 2013

Tue Nov. 19, 2013 10:34 AM EST

Recruits of Kilo Company, 3rd Recruit Training Battalion, change positions above a small pond on the Confidence Course Nov. 7, 2013, on Parris Island, S.C. The course is comprised of 15 obstacles designed to help Marine Corps recruits build confidence by overcoming physical challenges. Kilo Company is scheduled to graduate Nov. 22, 2013. Parris Island has been the site of Marine Corps recruit training since Nov. 1, 1915. Today, approximately 20,000 recruits come to Parris Island annually for the chance to become United States Marines by enduring 13 weeks of rigorous, transformative training. U.S. Marine Corps photo by Cpl. Caitlin Brink/Released.

If You're a Millennial, Black, or Latino, Good Luck Voting Quickly in 2016

A new report shows that black, Latino, and young voters disproportionately waited in longer lines to vote in 2012—and 2016 isn't looking so good.

| Tue Nov. 19, 2013 7:00 AM EST

When I voted last year in downtown Washington, DC, I was able to walk down the street, cast my ballot, and get back to the office in less than 30 minutes. But according to a new report by two voting rights groups, the Advancement Project and OurTime.org, plenty of American voters weren't so lucky. According to their research, African Americans, Latinos, and millennials in Virginia and Florida—two key battleground states—faced significantly longer wait times than older white voters in 2012. This was largely because the former groups are more inclined to utilize early voting, which was restricted in both states last year. And according to the report, this new "time tax"—along with other voting obstacles, like strict ID laws—will likely continue to dampen voter turnout among these groups in 2016.

In 2012, Florida cut early voting from 14 days to 8 days, and lines were so long, more than 200,000 Florida voters gave up and went home, according to data collected by the Orlando Sentinel. The Advancement Project and OurTime.org report focused on 5,196 of the 6,100 voting precincts that were used last November in Florida—which faced some of the longest voting lines in the country—and found that young voters spent a disproportionately longer time waiting to vote. For example, in Orange County, which has the highest percentage of voters younger than 30 in the state (22 percent), precincts closed an average of 86 minutes after the 7 p.m. deadline, with one precinct closing five hours late. The report found that in Orange County, the trend indicated that the more voters under 30 there were at a certain precinct, the later the closing time.

"Regarding the number of people willing to wait in line to vote in 2012, there were others who didn't vote, and there is no guarantee that voters will always be able to wait so long to exercise their fundamental rights," says Katherine Culliton-González, director of Advancement Project's Voter Protection Program. The report makes the case that young voters have less flexibility with their work schedules, and when early voting days are cut, as they were in Florida, lines get longer. Millennials (defined in the report as people between the ages of 18 and 29) are also more racially diverse than the rest of the population, meaning that there is often an overlap between young voters and voters of color. This 2013 MIT report found that voters of color are also more likely to wait in line than white voters:

The conservative Heritage Foundation maintains that African Americans face longer voting times than white voters because they "tend to be concentrated in large urban areas" and "the most populous areas had longer wait times than those living in areas with fewer voters." But Culliton-González, from the Advancement Project, tells Mother Jones that her group's study disproves this, since their research found that there wasn't a clear correlation between longer lines and precincts with dense populations. She says that, in Virginia, for example, "unless a voter can prove they are sick, otherwise disabled, or have to travel for work on Election Day, all voters must vote on the first Tuesday in November. These limits are probably what caused the disparities, as due to socioeconomic factors, many young voters of color have less flexibility in their work schedules." Voting rights groups argue that all states should offer flexible early voting—but some states have done the opposite: North Carolina, for example, is restricting early voting from 17 days to 10 days, starting in 2014.

Culliton-González adds, "We are concerned about 2014, but even more concerned about 2016," since Florida and other states will likely not have enough early voting time so that voters can avoid long lines. (The Advancement Project didn't find evidence of the "time tax" in the state elections earlier this month, partly because voter turnout was so low.)

But even if early voting is taken care of, young voters of color are also more likely to be turned away from the polls because of identification requirements. This was true in 2012, even in states that didn't have voter ID requirements on the books (see chart below). In the state elections that occurred earlier this month, numerous voters complained of being unable to vote because of real or perceived voter ID laws.

According to data collected by the Black Youth Project, an activist group that does research on issues that affect African American youth, only 67 percent of Latino youth and 71 percent of black youth possess driver's licenses, compared to 85 percent of white youth. Additionally, three times more young black voters than white voters said that lack of an ID was the reason they didn't vote in 2012. The Advancement Project and OurTime.org have submitted their report to the Presidential Committee on Election Administration, President Obama's group that is tasked with finding ways to improve voting.

Elizabeth Warren to Congress: Grandma "Will Be Left to Starve" If We Cut Social Security

The Massachusetts senator gave a Senate speech Monday in which she addressed the growing "retirement crisis" in America and called for Social Security expansion.

| Mon Nov. 18, 2013 7:31 PM EST

On Monday afternoon, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) delivered a speech on the Senate floor slamming those on Capitol Hill who want to cut Social Security in order to balance the budget and calling on Congress to expand the program instead.

"This is about our values," the senator said, "and our values tell us that we don't build a future by first deciding who among our most vulnerable will be left to starve."

Lawmakers have to come to an agreement to fund the government by mid-January, and some are floating Social Security cuts as a bargaining chip in a possible budget deal. Even President Barack Obama's last budget proposal contained cuts to the program.

Warren says slashing retirement benefits for elderly Americans is an absurd idea. Warren noted that Social Security payments are already stingy, averaging about $1,250 a month. Plus, an increasing number of Americans can no longer count on healthy pensions through their job. Two decades ago, 35 percent of jobs in the private sector offered workers a traditional pension that provided monthly payments retirees could rely on. Today, that number is only 18 percent. Some 44 million workers get no retirement help from their employers.

Because of the growing "retirement crisis" in America, Warren argued, "we should be talking about expanding Social Security benefits—not cutting them." She noted that several senators, including Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), have been pushing for just that.

Seniors are not going to get more generous retirement benefits as long as the GOP-dominated House opposes the idea. But most Democrats have said they won't agree to entitlement cuts without new revenues, and Republicans refuse to raise revenues, so real cuts are unlikely, too. Rather than hashing out a grand bargain that includes cuts to the safety net, Congress will probably kick the can down the road, and come to another modest, last-minute, short-term budget accord early next year.

But Warren's speech was about more than staving off immediate cuts to retirement benefits. It was yet another move to cement her role as Congress' star defender of the middle class. Warren has said she will not run for president in 2016. But this is one of many issues on which she has staked out a position to the left of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who is widely expected to run. In a speech at Colgate University last month, Clinton did not rule out the idea of limited cuts to entitlement programs as a means to reaching a budget deal.

After Judge Gives Rapist Probation, Alabama Rape Crisis Center Pushes to Change Law

Officials at Crisis Services of North Alabama say they are "appalled" at the judge who gave Austin Smith Clem 3 years of probation for raping a 14-year-old girl, and they will push to change Alabama law to prevent such lenient sentences in the future.

| Mon Nov. 18, 2013 3:14 PM EST

The Alabama state house.

In the wake of an Alabama judge's decision to give Austin Smith Clem probation for three felony rape convictions, a network of rape crisis centers in Alabama is pushing to change state law so judges are prevented from handing down such lenient punishments in the future.

In an email to Mother Jones, Janet S. Gabel, the executive director of Crisis Services of North Alabama, says that her organization is "appalled by the judge's decision to not send Mr. Clem to prison."

"We are concerned about the message this sends to rapists and victims in Limestone County," she notes. "I will be asking the Alabama Coalition Against Sexual Violence and the District Attorney's Association to join us in changing the wording of the state statute so that in the future, a convicted rapist will not be sentenced to community corrections but instead will receive an appropriate sentence for such a heinous crime."

We're Still at War: Photo of the Day for November 18, 2013

Mon Nov. 18, 2013 11:48 AM EST

Staff Sgt. Juan Fisher, 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit embarkation chief, re-enlists during a hike on Oct. 25, 2013. For most of the hike, the Marines wore Mission Oriented Protection Posture, or MOPP gear. The Marines wore the gear because during the hike, they were exposed to CS gas as part of their annual Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear training. U.S. Marine Corps photo by Gunnery Sgt. Rome Lazarus/Released.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Liz Cheney Heartlessly Disowns Her Sister on National TV

Former vice president's daughters publicly spar over same-sex marriage.

| Mon Nov. 18, 2013 9:41 AM EST

It's become a tired but true trope for the LGBT rights movement: As more people come out of the closet, the country increasingly tolerates different sexual orientations and identities. It's easy to casually gay bash when you've never met someone who isn't straight. It's much harder—and socially unacceptable—when you have to sit across from your niece and her girlfriend at Thanksgiving dinner.

This has certainly been true in politics. Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) wrote an op-ed endorsing same-sex marriage after his college-aged son came out as gay. President Barack Obama cited LGBT members of his staff when he explained his decision to back gay marriage last year. Even former Vice President Dick Cheney began to break GOP orthodoxy during the 2004 campaign. His acceptance can be attributed to his daughter Mary Cheney, a lesbian who married her longtime partner Heather Poe last year. The elder Cheney began to publicly support same-sex unions after he left the White House, pushing Maryland legislators to pass marriage equality in 2012.

But some members of the Cheney family don't seem so tolerant. Mary's older sister Liz is challenging Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.) in next year's Republican primary, running on a socially conservative platform. Liz's early poll numbers are dismal, thanks in part to a barrage of outside attack ads that claim she's "wrong for Wyoming" because she "supports government benefits for gay couples." (The fact Liz is a novice candidate who just moved back to the state earlier this year hasn't helped matters either.)

Liz, who's trailing by more than 50 points, couldn't let an attack like that stand pat, so she went on Fox News on Sunday to correct the record, clarifying that she's still dislikes same-sex marriage and doesn't approve of her sister's lifestyle. "Listen, I love Mary very much. I love her family very much," Liz said. "This is just an issue on which we disagree."

That prompted Mary to go public with her objections to Liz's outdated views. "Liz—this isn't just an issue on which we disagree—you're just wrong—and on the wrong side of history," Mary wrote on Facebook.

Poe also critiqued her sister-in-law. "Liz has been a guest in our home, has spent time and shared holidays with our children," Poe wrote on Facebook, "and when Mary and I got married in 2012—she didn't hesitate to tell us how happy she was for us. To have her now say she doesn't support our right to marry is offensive to say the least."

Wyoming is behind the national curve when it comes to same-sex marriage. As of July, only 32 percent of voters in the state support it. But Liz Cheney's opposition to full LGBT equality might not play so well; it's hard to campaign on "family values" when you're publicly criticizing your sister's marriage. The two sisters are no longer on speaking terms, with Mary telling the New York Times on Sunday that it is "impossible" unless Liz recants her statements. The Cheney family is scheduled to gather in Wyoming for the most awkward Christmas imaginable. "I will not be seeing her," Mary said.

House Passes GOP Bill That Could Curb Civil Rights Lawsuits

The legislation aims to cut down on frivolous lawsuits, but it could also block people from bringing certain discrimination cases.

| Mon Nov. 18, 2013 7:00 AM EST

Last week, the House passed a GOP bill that would slap fines on people who file "frivolous lawsuits"—like that one against the Weather Channel for failing to predict a storm. Except that the bill could also discourage Americans from filing civil rights lawsuits, according to Democrats who oppose the bill.

The Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act, which was introduced by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Tex.), passed the House 228 to 195, with only three Democrats voting in favor. It would require courts to fine attorneys for bringing suits that are intended to harass the defendant, or whose claims are not based on fact or existing law, or are not backed by a legitimate argument for establishing new law.

"Lawsuit abuse is common in America because the lawyers who bring these frivolous cases have everything to gain and nothing to lose," Smith said when the bill passed. He and fellow Republicans say that frivolous lawsuits waste thousands of court hours and cost companies billions of dollars each year.

But Democrats say the bill would have dangerous side effects. Smiths' bill could also make it harder for people to successfully bring civil rights lawsuits, they say, because these cases often hinge on new types of legal issues—such as transgender rights—making them more vulnerable to being shot down as invalid by a court. (Earlier this month, House Speaker John Boehner called discrimination lawsuits brought by LGBT individuals "frivolous".) Victims of discrimination may be less likely to file suit if they know they could be penalized for doing so.

The bill "will turn the clock back to a time when federal rules of civil procedure discouraged civil rights cases [and] limited judicial discretion," House judiciary committee ranking member John Conyers (D-Mich.) told The Hill after the bill passed, adding that the legislation would "have a disastrous impact on the administration of justice."

So, it's a good thing Smith's bill isn't going anywhere. The White House opposes it, and the Senate is unlikely to take the legislation up for a vote.

Vaginas Are Like "Little Hoover Vacuums," and Other Things Abstinence Lecturers Get Paid to Tell Teens

Meet five religious speakers who spread the message to teens that sex is bad and contraception doesn't work. And they might be coming to a public school near you.

| Mon Nov. 18, 2013 7:00 AM EST

I went to public high school in Montana, where at least once a year we were shuffled into the gymnasium for lectures from abstinence-only educational speakers on how to make "good choices." Young, sprightly twentysomethings, who often resembled Ken and Barbie, would dance around the auditorium playing Christian rock and trying to convince us that having sex wasn't cool. In between all the jokes and music, I learned that condoms cause cancer and that sex is a bad deal for women. Turns out, I wasn't alone. Across the the United States, public schools—even ones that teach comprehensive sex education—invite religious abstinence speakers to come in to talk to students about sex, and sometimes spread information that is factually inaccurate in the process. Here are five such speakers, many of whom have generated local headlines for their controversial presentations. And they might be coming to a school near you—they're all still active on the sex-is-bad circuit.

Justin Lookadoo: "God made guys as leaders." 
Lookadoo is a spiky-haired Christian lecturer who bills himself as a "professional Speaker who CONNECTS with the audience." He is on the road 200 days a year and on his website, he lists his age as "legal in every state." Lookadoo's presentations can be paid for "under many federal programs, including Safe and Drug Free Schools, Campus Improvement, Title I [and] Title IV." Last week, he caused controversy at Richardson High School in Texas when he gave a presentation for teenagers in which he said: "Girls, the reason it's so hard for you to succeed these days is not because of guys…You're doing it to yourselves," according to the Dallas Morning News. His online dating recommendations have also drawn ire from students and parents: "Men of God are wild…They keep women covered up" and "dateable girls know how to shut up." The Richardson High School principal apologized to students and parents, promising that "we will not invite this speaker back to RHS." Responding to the widespread media criticism, Lookadoo wrote on his Facebook page that "the complaints are based on relationship stuff [posted] on a website that I don’t even talk about in schools." 

Lookadoo.com


Jason Evert: "Girls...only lift the veil over your body to the spouse who is worthy."
Evert has two theology degrees and tours the country promoting abstinence with his wife, Crystalina Evert, with whom he runs the Chastity Project. According to Evert's bio, he speaks to over 100,000 teens each year. Evert tells Mother Jones he speaks to "lots of public schools" and his upcoming schedule shows that he's speaking next month at several in Texas. He says, however, that he removes all religious content from his public school presentations and is not paid personally for these events. Half of his honorarium for each event is spent on giving the students free copies of his pro-abstinence books and CDs.

Evert is passionate about women dressing modestly (or as he puts it, "Girls...only lift the veil over your body to the spouse who is worthy to see the glory of that unveiled mystery.") In this 2008 YouTube video, he says: "A culture of immodest women will necessarily be a culture of uncommitted men." He elaborated on those remarks for Mother Jones, saying that "true feminine liberation isn't about having the 'freedom' to dress like Miley Cyrus"​ and that that his views "could be judged as misogynist, but I think this would be an unfair assessment." He adds, "It's a joke to think the girl needs to be the chastity cop...but to reach [a] level of mutual respect in society, I don't think Daisy Duke shorts are going to expedite the process." Evert also maintains that birth control pills cause abortions. (In reality, they prevent conception, and if an egg is fertilized, they make the uterine lining inhospitable for implantation. The Code of Federal Regulations and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists define pregnancy as beginning at implantation.)


Pam Stenzel: "If you take birth control, your mother probably hates you."
Stenzel is a lecturer who, according to her bio, "provide[s] a structured and unambiguous message of abstinence that will mobilize and empower adolescents to make responsible choices​" and claims to speak in-person to about 500,000 young people annually. She makes about $4,000 to $6,000 per appearance and has an extensive line of DVDs. She was also consulted for President George W. Bush's abstinence programs. This April, at George Washington High School in Charleston, West Virginia, a public school, she allegedly made some female students cry by "slut-shaming" them. According to the Charleston Gazette, she said, "If you take birth control, your mother probably hates you" and claimed she could tell which teenagers are promiscuous by looking at them. Stenzel told LifeSiteNews that she never said those things, but acknowledged that her presentation was "a little tough." In her YouTube videos, Stenzel tells students that sex is worse for girls (because they "are much easier to infect and easier to damage"). She also asserts that the HPV vaccine "only works on virgins," and that chlamydia—even when treated—is likely to make women infertile, with a 25 percent chance of infertility the first time it's contracted and a 50 percent chance the second time. Her HPV claim is 100 percent false, and her chlamydia statement is mostly false. (Of women with chlamydia who go untreated, about 10 percent will develop pelvic inflammatory disease, which in some cases may cause infertility.)


Joi Wasill: "According to your health textbook, and all of the medical textbooks, and science textbooks, and biology texts, conception is when life begins."
Wasill is the founder and executive director of Decisions, Choices & Options, Inc., a Tennessee-based organization with strong Christian and Republican ties that has provided educational programs that have reached about 40,000 high school students (her organization is currently available for public school bookings.) For speaking gigs outside of the Nashville area, the organization charges for travel fees and a per diem. In May, she spoke at Hillsboro High School, a public school in Nashville, Tennessee, along with Beth Cox, a presenter for Wasill’s organization. One student recorded her presentation and leaked it to the press. RH Reality Check, a daily publication covering sexual health, noted the talk included a host of inaccurate information.

The speakers claimed that condoms have holes in them and a failure rate of 14 percent (it's actually less than 3 percent); that first-trimester abortions can cause infertility (the National Abortion Federation says they're one of the "safest" medical procedures); and that the morning-after pill is a "chemical abortion" (nope, it delays and prevents ovulation). They also said that "according to your health textbook, and all of the medical textbooks, and science textbooks, and biology texts," life begins at conception. Wasil tells Mother Jones that her curriculum is "based upon information obtained from the Center[s] for Disease Control, SEICUS [Sexual Information and Education Council of the United States], National Center for Health Statistics, the health textbooks adopted by the state, and other sources such as these." Teaching "sexual risk avoidance" is in accordance with the law, she says, adding, "the avoidance of the risky behavior that leads to infection, disease, and teenage pregnancy is the best outcome for all students and enables them to live healthy, productive and successful lives."

Pro Life in TN


Shelly Donahue: "Girls are more feelings-oriented, and boys are more facts-oriented."
Donahue is a speaker for the Colorado-based Center for Relationship Education, an abstinence-only education program that works with students in 42 states and has received millions in federal funds. In 2006, Donohue caused controversy at Natrona County High School, a public school in Casper, Wyoming, when she gave a religious-themed abstinence presentation. According to the Casper Star-Tribune, she asked students, "Do you get closer to your God or do you get farther away when you have sex?" (The answer she wanted: "Farther away.") She also said that boys are "wired" to like math, science, and numbers, and girls are wired to be more feelings-oriented. She held up a bag of noodles to indicate that girls "are like spaghetti, with their feelings about parts of their lives entangled," according to the Star-Tribune. (She told the paper: "The outpouring and the positive was so much greater than this one kid's complaint.") In a training video posted by the Denver Westword in 2011, Donahue tells students that if a guy gets sperm anywhere near a girl's vagina, it will turn into a "little Hoover vacuum" and she will become pregnant. (No. Vaginas don't vacuum sperm off the couch.) In another 2011 video, she says, "the boys want to love and respect these girls, and the girls won't let them. The girls are backing up the booty, the girls are being assertive, these girls are emasculating these boys." She continues to conduct sex-ed training programs for teachers on public Title V funds and is holding one this month in Greeley, Colorado.

Walmart Ads Target "Low Income" Consumers With Junk Food

Pushing Coke, Frosted Flakes, and Cheetos on America's poor.

| Mon Nov. 18, 2013 7:00 AM EST

In 2011, Walmart pledged to offer healthier grocery options by reducing the sugar and sodium content of packaged foods, rolling out a "Great for You" food label, and making fresh fruits and vegetables more affordable. It has done that to an extent, but those are not typically the products that it markets to its "low income" shoppers.

A November 13 advertising circular specifically aimed at low-income customers included discount coupons for a two-liter bottle of Coca-Cola, a 10-pack of Kool-Aid Jammers drinks, and a 9.5-ounce bag of Cheetos. Only 3 of the 36 discounted items in the ad were labeled "Great for You," while 10 of them touted high-sugar, high-sodium, or high-fat junk foods. The ad did not include any coupons for fresh fruits or vegetables.

By contrast, coupons appearing at the same time in a separate, more broadly targeted "Grocery" advertising page included yellow onions, whole carrots, and Bartlett pears.

At some point after November 13, Walmart changed the name of its "Low Income" coupon page to "Stretch & Save." Walmart did not respond to questions about why it changed the name and why its Stretch & Save customers don't deserve healthier options.

Early this year, Michele Obama appeared at a Walmart store in Springfield, Missouri, to tout the retail giant's move toward healthier offerings. "For years, the conventional wisdom said that healthy products just didn't sell," she said from a podium set up in the produce section. "Thanks to Walmart and other companies, we are proving the conventional wisdom wrong."

But Walmart's advertising strategy seems to suggest that the retail giant still isn't willing to market fresh fruits and vegetables to the shopping demographic that most needs them. It's hard to say why. Maybe Walmart has figured out that ads for Bartlett pears won't get the poor through the doors. Or maybe its mediocre and low-margin produce just isn't profitable enough.

Either way, one would hope Walmart, as a corporate citizen, could see value in marketing healthy foods to low-income shoppers, given that those shoppers are also its workers. Then again, controlling its employees' health care costs typically hasn't been a big part of Walmart's business plan.