Political MoJo

House GOP Advances Fake Pro-Working-Mother Bill

| Tue May. 7, 2013 9:44 AM PDT
House Majority Leader Eric CantorHouse Majority Leader Eric Cantor tours Richmond Public Schools adult career center.

In February, in the wake of their bruising loss at the polls in the 2012 presidential election, Republicans in Congress decided to launch a concerted effort to change their image and lure back a critical group of voters who abandoned the party in droves last year: women. To that end, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) gave a high-profile speech about how the party intended to "make life work" for working families. He emphasized women-friendly ideas like improving education, reducing the cost of college, and other key work/life balance issues. Among those he touched on was the idea of flex time. Cantor said:

If you're a working parent, you know there’s hardly ever enough time at home to be with the kids. Too many parents have to weigh whether they can afford to miss work even for half a day to see their child off on the first day of school or attend a parent-teacher conference.

Federal laws dating back to the 1930s make it harder for parents who hold hourly jobs to balance the demands of work and home. An hourly employee cannot convert previous overtime into future comp-time or flex-time. In 1985, Congress passed a law that gave state and municipal employees this flexibility, but today still denies that same privilege to the entire private sector. That’s not right...

Imagine if we simply chose to give all employees and employers this option. A working mom could work overtime this month and use it as time off next month without having to worry about whether she’ll be able to take home enough money to pay the rent. This is the kind of common sense legislation that should be non-controversial and moves us in the right direction to help make life work for families.

Flex-time as Cantor described it sounds great on paper—every working parent's dream even! But of course, the devil is in the details. Those details come in the form of the Working Families Flexibility Act, a bill Cantor introduced in April. Far from helping working families, the proposed legislation would instead deprive them of the longstanding right to be paid time-and-a-half for overtime. The bill would allow companies to give hourly workers comp time in lieu of overtime if the workers agree to it. That might not be such a terrible thing, except that the bill doesn't give workers any power to decide when to use the comp time. The employer gets to decide that. If the employer fails to let the worker use a bunch of accrued comp time, the bill would allow the worker to demand the overtime compensation in cash, but it gives the company 30 days to make good on the payment. And if the company stiffs the worker on the overtime compensation, the bill prevents workers from complaining to the US Department of Labor, as they can now, and instead forces them to try to find a lawyer who will take up their cause to collect a few hundred dollars worth of back pay, a fairly toothless enforcement measure. The bill, supported by the US Chamber of Commerce, is a backdoor attempt to shield big companies like Wal-Mart from costly lawsuits they've seen stemming from their systematic refusal to pay low-wage workers the overtime to which they're legally entitled.

All of this is why women's groups aren't signing on to the bill. The legislation "only pretends to give people the time they need to manage the dual demands of work and family," Debra Ness, president of the National Partnership on Women and Families, said this week as the bill moved forward in the House. "It is insulting that the House is wasting time with a bill that would make things so much worse."

Republicans' track record of helping working families is truly dismal, and one speech from Cantor isn't going to change that. Republicans fought the Family and Medical Leave Act tooth and nail (the first President Bush vetoed the bill twice before Bill Clinton finally signed it in to law) and have refused to expand it to include more people or paid leave so families could actually use it. This is the same party that rabidly opposes the Healthy Families Act, which would provide paid sick leave for more workers, a measure public health officials say is critical not just to family sanity but to the nation's health. Perhaps what's most depressing about the GOP's new working families bill is that Republican leaders thought women were dumb enough not to notice that it was just a cynical attempt to win women's votes while still catering to the GOP's big corporate backers.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Lew Slams Wall Street Deregulation Bills

| Tue May. 7, 2013 9:02 AM PDT

The House Financial Services Committee (HFSC) plans to vote on nine separate bills this week that have been presented as technical fixes to the sweeping 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. But these measures have the potential to dramatically weaken the legislation, which was designed to prevent another financial crisis a la 2007. Now Treasury Secretary Jack Lew has weighed in, condemning the measures in a letter to HFSC chair Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas).

"The derivatives provisions in the Wall Street Reform Act constitute an important part of the reforms being put into place to strengthen our financial system by improving transparency and reducing risk for market participants," Lew wrote in the letter. (Derivatives are financial products that have values based on underlying numbers, like crop prices or interest rates; some economists believe these products helped cause the 2007 financial collapse.) "These reforms should not be weekend or repealed."

Lew had, up until now, been silent on this set of bills. As I reported last month, former Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner slammed a series of nearly identical bills last year, but Lew had so far declined to address the latest proposed changes. After our story ran, a Treasury spokeswoman reached out to clarify that, "Of course the Treasury secretary would oppose any effort to weaken Wall Street reform," and pointed to Lew's previous public statements opposing efforts to undermine Dodd-Frank or delay its implementation.

Monday's letter put that promise into action. "I urge Members to oppose these bills and others like it that would weaken the important regulatory changes that Wall Street Reform has made to the derivatives market," he wrote. He added that only some of the rules governing the derivatives market have been finalized, so these bills are "premature":

Regulators are already addressing many of the issues presented in these bills through their rule makings. In many instances, legislation is premature and aspects would be disruptive and harmful to the implementation of key reforms. We should allow the regulators to complete their ongoing rule makings, and then determine what changes, if any, might be necessary in certain areas to improve the effectiveness of these reforms.

One of the bills before the committee this week would allow certain derivatives that are traded within a corporation to be exempt from almost all new Dodd-Frank regulations. Financial reform advocates say these kinds of trades can still pose a risk to the wider financial system. Another measure would expand the type of trading risks that banks can take on. A third bill would allow big, multinational US-based banks to escape US regulations by operating through international arms.

While some Democrats in the committee share Lew's concerns about the measures, the bills do have bipartisan support. It is unclear whether the bills will pass. House Financial Services Committee members received some $14.8 million in contributions from the financial services and banking sectors during the last election cycle. This week, we will see where members' loyalties lie.

MoveOn, Sierra Club, and Daily Kos Spike Facebook Ads to Protest Mark Zuckerberg's Dark-Money Group

| Tue May. 7, 2013 8:43 AM PDT
Facebook cofounder Mark Zuckerberg.

Nine big-name progressive groups, including MoveOn.org, the Sierra Club, and Daily Kos, announced Tuesday morning that they will yank their current paid advertisements on Facebook or cancel future ad buys in protest of FWD.us, the dark-money nonprofit that Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg cofounded.

Zuckerberg and fellow tech entrepreneur Joe Green launched FWD.us last month in order to give Silicon Valley a greater political presence in Washington on issues that affect the tech industry. A bipartisan, bicoastal team of political strategists and organizers is running the operation, and the group's public supporters include the CEO of Dropbox, the cofounder of LinkedIn, a smattering of rock-star tech investors, and some guy named Bill Gates. The group has reportedly raised $25 million already, and while it lists its "major contributors" online, it does not say how much they contributed. FWD.us chose immigration reform as its first big cause, and it has lobbied Congress to expand the number of visas available to foreign engineers and other high-skilled workers that Silicon Valley firms would like to recruit.

As part of its immigration strategy, FWD.us ran a week's worth of ads praising Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska) for supporting more drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR) and featuring Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) criticizing Obamacare and President Obama's stance on the Keystone XL pipeline. FWD.us ran the ads ostensibly to buy Begich and Graham some political cover to take a more moderate tack on immigration reform.

The ads are no longer on the air, but progressives are nonetheless fuming over FWD.us' tactics. Protesters recently demonstrated outside of Facebook's Menlo Park, California, headquarters, chanting, "Keystone, take a hike. Facebook dislike." CREDO Mobile, the progressive phone company*, distributed signs for that protest and also tried to run an ad on Facebook urging Zuckerberg to kill the pro-Keystone ads. Facebook rejected the ad, saying it violated company policy because it prominently used Zuckerberg's image.

Progressives United, a liberal nonprofit founded by former Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), is leading the freeze on Facebook ad buys, which will last at least two weeks. Other participants in the protest include Democracy for America, the political action committee founded by Howard Dean; CREDO Super-PAC and CREDO Mobile; League of Conservation Voters; 350.org; and Presente, the progressive Hispanic advocacy group. It is unclear how much these groups actually spend or plan to spend on Facebook ads; there was no mention of Facebook ad spending in their announcement.

Kate Hansen, a spokeswoman for FWD.us, directed a request for comment to Facebook. Sarah Feinberg, a Facebook spokeswoman, declined to comment.

Leaders of the groups protesting Facebook said they don't disagree with FWD.us on the need for a major overhaul of the nation's immigration system. Their beef is with the nonprofit's political strategy thus far. "Leaders in the technology community have every right to talk about how immigration reform will benefit their businesses," Feingold said in a statement. "But instead, FWD.us has chosen a strategy that's condescending to voters and counterproductive to the cause of reform."

Nick Berning, a spokesman for MoveOn, added: "MoveOn members are committed to passing a comprehensive immigration reform bill this year, but unlike FWD.us, we don't support throwing other important issues like access to health care and action to combat climate change under the bus to do it. We find FWD.us and Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg's advertisements promoting the dangerous Keystone XL pipeline and criticizing Obamacare deeply disturbing."

*Disclosure: Mother Jones is among the dozens of nonprofits that have received funding from CREDO Mobile through its customer-selected action program.

Here's Why the Syrian Electronic Army Targeted Justin Bieber With Homosexuality Rumors

| Tue May. 7, 2013 3:00 AM PDT

The Syrian Electronic Army, a loosely defined collective of hackers supporting the mass-murdering regime of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, are known for disrupting the social-media operations of news outlets, activists, and human rights groups. Over the weekend, the army found itself a new target: pop icon Justin Bieber and his devout fanbase of "Beliebers."

On Saturday, somebody claiming to be an SEA member hacked the Twitter account of the entertainment news outlet E! Online and sent out the following tweets:

Justin Bieber Syrian Electronic Army tweet gay
Justin Bieber E! Online tweet

Nearly an hour after that first tweet, the Assad-loyalist hacker sent this from the E! house account:

Justin Bieber gay Syrian Electronic Army Twitter hacking E Online

The phony tweets also contained links that reportedly directed followers to malware downloads or other damaging websites. As a result, the E! Online Twitter account was briefly suspended. "Eonline's breaking news twitter and sms accounts were compromised today," an NBCUniversal spokesperson said in a statement. "We're working to have this resolved as quickly as possible and are fully investigating the incident. We apologize for any confusion that the erroneous news alerts may have caused." (Justin Bieber and his publicist did not respond to multiple requests for comment.)

So why did the SEA target Justin Bieber and his adoring fans? Or Spring Breakers star Selena Gomez or Angelina Jolie, for that matter?

America's 14 Most Pissed-Off Comments on the TSA's Airport Body Scanners

| Tue May. 7, 2013 3:00 AM PDT
Image from a backscatter X-ray airport scanner.

Americans wishing to fly by plane have been subjected to full-body scanners, also known as "Advanced Imaging Technology" or "porno scanners," since the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) rolled them out in airports in 2008. The goal of the scanners is to aid in the detection of illegal and dangerous items, but they've raised health concerns and peeved travelers who don't feel comfortable that the scanners broadcast semi-nude images of their bodies. Those passengers who wish to bypass the scanners face an equally unpopular alternative: a physical pat down by a TSA agent.

TSA is getting rid of the most controversial scanners by this summer because the company that made them wasn't adequately protecting passenger privacy. The replacement scanners are supposed to offer more privacy by only showing a generic outline of passengers.

Since late March, Americans have submitted over 3,000 comments to the TSA about the existing scanners and the planned change. Here are 14 of the most pissed off public comments submitted to TSA…and the one guy who loves them:

  1. "No to scanners. You want to see my junk? Fine. But first buy me a drink."—Jack A. Webber
  2. "You're really asking us if we want you to be checking out our genitals in the name of national security?"—Alec
  3. "I opted out once and I felt like crying because I'm not a touchy feel person and well, when you are using feminine hygiene products, NO ONE wants to be touched anywhere near there…So yeah, no more flying for me."—Anonymous
  4. "I sit in airports, and watch people get shuffled through these machines, raising their hands like criminals 'assuming the position,' and I think- 'How did we get so afraid?'—Curtis
  5. "A poem: Land of the screened./Home of the afraid./No porno scanners. Why?/4th Amendment./Health risks./Common sense./Liberty./No TSA./Why?/See above."—S. Private
  6. "STOP USING ADVANCED IMAGING TECHNOLOGY FOR SCREENING PASSENGERS ! YOU TYRANNICAL DEMONS. WE CAN ALL SEE IF YOU HAVE A GUN OR BOMB AND WE AIN'T SCARED OF KNIVES AND BOX CUTTERS"—Anonymous
  7. "Bunch of perverts! You are slowing down our economy."—Onederer
  8. "I am an 82 year old Jewish woman with an artificial hip. That makes me a prime terrorist suspect according to the TSA. I need to be frisked every time I fly. That is a disgusting procedure. I doubt that Janet Napolitano would want her mother or her grandmother to be subjected to it."—Joan B. Berkowitz
  9. "I have not flown in more than 2 years since being improperly touched and fondled by a TSA employee. I served in the military to defend the rights and freedoms of this country, only to come home to find the TSA taking both away."—Anonymous
  10. "I am a stroke survivor…I am a rape survivor…I take a train or drive, because I'm not willing to put myself in the hands of people who bully and try to railroad me through machines my doctor has strictly said to stay away from."—T.A. 
  11. "Go ahead. Screen me. Screen the crap out of me. Coming and going if you must. But don't let this be a doorway to more and more restrictions. I don't care if you want to make sure no explosives get on a flight. I do care if you'll look through my phone or computer files as well."—Jonathan
  12. "I spent over 36 years on active duty in the United States Navy. Had numerous very high security clearances and was a qualified Nuclear Weapons delivery pilot. Being 'frisked' or forced into an X-ray machine and treated as a common criminal [is] disgusting to someone who dedicated a large portion of his life to the defense of the united States."—Terry Farnell Carraway
  13. "Having 4 replaced joints, I am full of metal and have had numerous X-rays. I don't want to subject myself to more X-rays…My husband and I were a writer-photographer team and used to fly everywhere for our business. Since you have instituted these procedures, we have been forced to give up our business."—El Hilf
  14. "AS A PILOT AND FLYER IM AS CONCERNED AS ANY ABOUT SECURITY FOR ALL TRAVELERS AND I AND MY SIG OTHER ARE ALSO NATURIST [NUDIST, AS ARE A VERY MANY] HUMANS. TO EXPEDITE AIRPORT SCREENINGS A 'NUDIST' OR SIMILARLY WORDED LINE SHOULD OFFER VERY FAST SCREENING FOR THOSE OF US WHO ARE NOT SHAMED BY OUR BODIES. THIS WOULD BE A GREAT BOON TO TRAVELERS AND HELP UNCLOG SCREENING STATIONS"—Norm Al Man

BONUS, the one guy who loves them:

"I love the new body scan system. I have two artificial knee replacements, and was always put in the uncomfortable position of having to step out of line for an intrusive pat-down. Now, I stand in the machine like everyone else, and I guess they see the artificial knees and I go right through. I'm as happy as can be!"—Fred Joreskfly

Depressing Headline of the Day

| Mon May. 6, 2013 3:13 PM PDT

Here it is:

US Air Force sexual assault headline

Here's an excerpt from the Stars and Stripes story:

The chief of the [US] Air Force's sexual assault prevention and response branch was arrested this weekend and charged with sexual battery.

Lt. Col. Jeffrey Krusinski, 41, of Arlington, Va., was arrested Sunday morning, according to the Arlington police. He's accused of approaching a woman in a parking lot and grabbing her breasts and buttocks, according to the crime report. He has been removed from his position, an Air Force spokeswoman said on condition of anonymity.

Krusinski heads up the Air Force's sexual assault prevention and response branch, an Air Force spokeswoman confirmed.

Read the whole thing here.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Mark Follman on "Inside Story": The Power of the NRA

Mon May. 6, 2013 2:40 PM PDT

Two weeks after Congress killed off gun control legislation, the National Rifle Association declared victory in Houston at its annual national convention. In a speech, Wayne LaPierre extolled what he portrayed as a diverse crowd in attendance. But is the true source of the NRA's power grassroots or corporate? Mother Jones senior editor Mark Follman joined author Paul Barrett and former NRA lobbyist Richard Feldman on Al Jazeera's "Inside Story" to debate how the famously secretive and fact-challenged gun group operates. Watch:

Bonus video: Behold the Texas governor's entrance at this year's NRA convention, dubbed by one YouTube poster as "Rick Perry's super bad ass NRA gun intro video." Come for the rocking soundtrack, stay for Perry's manly removal of an assault rifle magazine:

Read our full special report on gun laws and the rise of mass shootings in America.

Mark Follman is a senior editor at Mother Jones. Read more of his stories and follow him on Twitter.

Inside the Democracy Alliance, the Liberal Answer to the Koch Donor Network

| Mon May. 6, 2013 12:46 PM PDT
Facebook cofounder Chris Hughes, who owns the New Republic magazine, is a member of the Democracy Alliance.

Once or twice a year, Charles Koch, the billionaire industrialist and one-half of the "Koch brothers" duo, invites several hundred donors, big-name politicians, and conservative thinkers to a posh resort somewhere classy like Palm Springs or Aspen or Vail. The Kochs and their allies discuss how best to elect their favored politicians and spread their free-market ideas, and they hear pitches from conservative activists trying to carry out that strategy on the ground. Then the attendees make a pledge to fund the groups fighting for their causes. The Koch donor retreats are, by now, well known in political circles, and a magnet for reporters and protesters.

What's often left unmentioned in coverage of the Kochs' gatherings is that Democrats and progressives do the same thing. The Democracy Alliance is an exclusive group of about 100 funders, founded in 2005 by Democratic strategist Rob Stein. Members include billionaire financier George Soros and Facebook cofounder Chris Hughes, who owns the New Republic magazine. Matea Gold of the Los Angeles Times was recently given a rare glimpse inside the Alliance's operations, and she came away with a useful, fascinating story.

Since 2005, the Alliance has directed roughly $500 million to left-leaning organizations, including the Center for American Progress think tank, the watchdog Media Matters for America, and the political data firm Catalist. The Democracy Alliance, as an organization, does not make donations; instead, leaders of left-leaning organizations pitch the group's members, and the Alliance recommends which causes its wealthy members should support. Members must give at least $200,000 annually to Alliance-backed organizations, on top of a $30,000-a-year membership fee.

The Alliance recently met over five days at a hotel in Laguna Beach, Calif., not far from the Koch donor meeting at the Renaissance Esmeralda golf resort in Palm Springs. At the Laguna Beach retreat, Gold reports, Alliance members pledged $50 million to an array of organizations.

Two story lines emerged out of the latest Alliance event. One was an intense focus on immigration reform among Alliance members as Congress considers bipartisan legislation to overhaul the country's immigration system. The other big news was the Alliance's endorsement of Organizing for Action, the nonprofit devoted to enacting President Obama's second-term agenda. OFA has said it wants to raise $50 million this year, but it raked in less than $5 million in the first three months of 2013. The Alliance's decision to back OFA, then, couldn't have come at a better time:

Among those on hand to pitch to the donors was Jon Carson, executive director of Organizing for Action, who stressed the ways in which his group is partnering with other liberal advocacy organizations.

"One thing we've made very clear to everyone is we're going to work very collaboratively with everyone out there in the progressive infrastructure," Carson said. "We're going to focus on the pieces we bring to the table and not duplicate things."

[Alliance chairman (and former Mother Jones board member) Rob] McKay said Carson assuaged worries that Organizing for Action, run by former Obama campaign officials, would compete with other groups. "The biggest concern would be if OFA was just going to try to re-create the wheel in a bunch of areas where we felt significant investments have been made," he said.

The pro-Obama group, which had already received some donations from Democracy Alliance members, was recommended for funding for one year. It will be reconsidered next year but was not included in the three-year portfolio.

The hottest topic of the conference was immigration reform, as leaders of the Service Employees International Union and other advocates emphasized that comprehensive legislation could pass this year.

"The partners were really impressed with how close we are on this, and yet how tenuous it is, even at this stage," McKay said. "We've got to get this done."

The full story is one of the better detailed accounts I've seen of the Democracy Alliance, which will continue to play a crucial role on immigration, gun control, and other pressing issues on Congress' to-do list.

Study: 1 in 5 Youth at Risk for Suicide Have a Gun at Home

| Mon May. 6, 2013 12:06 PM PDT

A new study by leading pediatricians has found that nearly 20 percent of young people between the ages of 10 and 21 who are considered to be at risk for suicide have guns in their homes. The study is being presented Monday at the annual Pediatric Academic Societies meeting in Washington, following a symposium held Saturday that also addressed youth gun suicides, media violence, and gun violence prevention.

For the study, 524 patients were surveyed using a standard suicide assessment screening: 17 percent of the 151 patients determined to be suicide risks said they lived in a home with guns; 31 percent said they knew how to access the guns, and the same number said they knew how to access ammunition; 15 percent said they could get their hands on both.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, suicide is the third leading cause of death of people between the ages of 10 and 24. Among that age group, guns are the top method of suicide. Research elsewhere suggests that having access to guns increases the likelihood that suicidal people will actually kill themselves.

In 1996, the National Rifle Association successfully lobbied for an amendment to an appropriations bill that gutted the CDC's gun violence research budget. "None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control...may be used to advocate or promote gun control," the amendment read. Since its passage, the agency has been almost entirely absent from gun research, leaving such studies up to others. This January, President Obama announced plans to direct the CDC to resume studying the causes and prevention of gun violence.

Gun rights advocates and groups like the NRA have continued to argue that gun violence studies are politically motivated, and might build a case for greater gun control. After the Tucson shooting in 2011, for instance, NRA chief lobbyist Chris Cox told the New York Times, "Our concern is not with legitimate medical science. Our concern is they were promoting the idea that gun ownership was a disease that needed to be eradicated." Some have even argued that Obama's move to restart the research is illegal.

We're Still at War: Photo of the Day for May 6, 2013

Mon May. 6, 2013 10:41 AM PDT

Poolees with Recruiting Station Lansing participate in a morning motivational run at Fort Custer near Battle Creek, Mich. April 21. U.S. Marine Corps photo by Sgt. Kevin Maynard.