MoJo Blogs and Articles | Mother Jones http://www.motherjones.com/rss/blogs_and_articles/sites/all/modules/patched/service_links/images/index.xml http://www.motherjones.com/files/motherjonesLogo_google_206X40.png Mother Jones logo http://www.motherjones.com en Newly Released Clinton Doc: White House Aide Blasts Bill Clinton and Al Gore for "F***ing Stupid" Move http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2014/04/bill-clinton-white-house-carl-albert-funeral-email <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd"> <html><body> <p>Among the trove of Clinton-era documents <a href="http://clintonlibrary.gov/previouslyrestricteddocs.html" target="_blank">released Friday afternoon</a> by the former president's library is an email from an angry White House aide who blasts President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore for not attending the funeral of Oklahoma Democrat Carl Albert. Known as the "Little Giant from Little Dixie," Albert, who stood five feet four-and-a-half inches tall, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2000/02/06/us/carl-bert-albert-a-powerful-democrat-in-congress-for-three-decades-is-dead-at-91.html">served as speaker</a> of the House of Representatives from 1971 to 1976.</p> <p>Albert died on February 4, 2000, and many Democratic politicians attended his funeral five days later. But Clinton and&nbsp;Gore skipped the event. In an email, Tim Emrich, who worked on the White House's scheduling team, said "it's fucking stupid" that Clinton and Gore didn't attend. Emrich elaborated: "It's stupid that neither BC nor AG is attending this funeral. ESPECIALLY AG, it's such an easy home run in the largest democratic part of the state."</p> <p>Here's the email:</p> <div class="inline inline-center" style="display: table; width: 1%"><img alt="" class="image" src="/files/fucking-stupid-clinton-oklahoma-email.jpg"></div> </body></html> MoJo Elections Fri, 18 Apr 2014 18:58:21 +0000 Andy Kroll 250171 at http://www.motherjones.com READ: The Clinton Administration's Internal Memo on the "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy" http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2014/04/hillary-clinton-white-house-conspiracy-report <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd"> <html><body> <p>In a 1995 internal memo, President Bill Clinton's White House Counsel's Office offered an in-depth analysis of the right-wing media mill that Hillary Clinton had dubbed the "vast right-wing conspiracy." Portions of the report, which was reported on by the <em>Wall Street Journal</em> and other outlets at the time, were included in a new trove of documents released to the public by the Clinton presidential library on Friday.</p> <p>The report traced the evolution of various Clinton scandals, such as Whitewater and the Gennifer Flowers affair allegations, from their origins at conservative&nbsp;think tanks&nbsp;or in British tabloids, until the point in which they entered the mainstream news ecosystem. Making matters even more complicated was new technology, the report explained:&nbsp;"[E]vidence exists that Republican staffers surf the internet, interacting with extremists in order to exchange the ideas and information." The administration even had a name for the process: "The Communication Stream of Conspiracy Commerce."</p> <p>Per the document:</p> <blockquote> <p>The Communication Stream of Conspiracy Commerce refers to the mode of communication employed by the right wing to convey their fringe stories into legitimate subjects of coverage by the mainstream media. This is how the stream works. Well funded right wing think tanks and individuals underwrite conservative newsletters and newspapers such as the <em>Western Journalism Center</em>, the <em>American Spectator</em> and the <em>Pittsburgh Tribune Review</em>. Next, the stories are re-printed on the internet where they are bounced all over the world. From the internet, the stories are bounced into the mainstream media through one of two ways: 1) The story will be picked up by the British tabloids and covered as a major story, from which the American right-of-center mainstream media (i.e. the <em>Wall Street Journal</em>, <em>Washington Times</em> and <em>New York Post</em>) will then pick the story up; or 2) The story will be bounced directly from the internet to the right-of-center mainstream American media. After the mainstream right-of-center media covers the story, Congressional committees will look into the story. After Congress looks into the story, the story now has the legitimacy to be covered by the remainder of the American mainstream press as a "real" story.</p> </blockquote> <p>Chief among the White House's frustrations was conservative reaction to the death of Vince Foster, the president's former chief of staff. Right-wing outlets alleged that the Clintons had murdered Foster (or hired someone to do it) and covered it up as a suicide. According to the report:</p> <blockquote> <p>The controversy surrounding the death of Vince Foster has been, in large part, the product of a well-financed right-wing conspiracy industry operation. The "Wizard of Oz" figure orchestrating the machinations of the conspiracy industry is a little-known recluse, Richard Mellon Scaife. Scaife uses his $800 million dollar inherited Mellon fortune to underwrite the Foster conspiracy industry. Scaife promotes the industry through his ownership of a small Pittsburgh newspaper, the<em> Tribune-Review</em>. Scaife's paper, under the direction of reporter Chris Ruddy, continually publishes stories regarding Foster's death. The stories are then reprinted in major newspapers all over the country in the form of paid advertisements. The Western Journalism Center (WJC), a non-profit conservative think tank, places the ads in these newspapers. The WJC receives much of its financial backing from Scaife.</p> </blockquote> <p>(Ruddy went on to found <em>Newsmax</em>, a conservative media outlet now <a href="http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/steve-malzberg-says-chelsea-clintons-pregnancy-was-deliberately-timed-benefit-hillarys-presi" target="_blank">promoting the theory</a> that Chelsea Clinton decided to have a baby in order to help her mother's 2016 presidential bid.)</p> <p>Read the document in all of its glory:</p> <div class="DV-container" id="DV-viewer-1115427-clinton-the-communication-stream-of-conspiracy">&nbsp;</div> <script src="//s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/viewer/loader.js"></script><script> DV.load("//www.documentcloud.org/documents/1115427-clinton-the-communication-stream-of-conspiracy.js", { width: 630, height: 500, sidebar: false, text: false, container: "#DV-viewer-1115427-clinton-the-communication-stream-of-conspiracy" }); </script><noscript> <a href="http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1115427/clinton-the-communication-stream-of-conspiracy.pdf">Clinton Memos: "The Communication Stream of Conspiracy Commerce" (PDF)</a> <br><a href="http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1115427/clinton-the-communication-stream-of-conspiracy.txt">Clinton Memos: "The Communication Stream of Conspiracy Commerce" (Text)</a> </noscript> <p>&nbsp;</p> <noscript> &Acirc;&nbsp;<a href="http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1115427/clinton-the-communication-stream-of-conspiracy.pdf">Clinton Memos: "The Communication Stream of Conspiracy Commerce" (PDF)</a> &Acirc;&nbsp;<br> &Acirc;&nbsp;<a href="http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1115427/clinton-the-communication-stream-of-conspiracy.txt">Clinton Memos: "The Communication Stream of Conspiracy Commerce" (Text)</a> </noscript> </body></html> MoJo Elections Hillary Clinton Media Fri, 18 Apr 2014 18:43:43 +0000 Tim Murphy 250146 at http://www.motherjones.com Lawsuit: Texas Hospital Caved to Anti-Abortion Activists' Demands http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/04/texas-hospital-abortion-doctor-lawsuit <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd"> <html><body> <p>Two abortion providers sued a Dallas hospital on Thursday, after the hospital revoked their admitting privileges. Because Texas law now <a href="http://legiscan.com/TX/text/HB2/id/871872" target="_blank">requires</a> doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a local hospital, the revocation would mean that these doctors could no longer legally perform abortions. In a letter to the doctors, Chuck Schuetz, CEO of University General Hospital&ndash;Dallas, said they were disrupting the hospital's "business and the reputation" by providing abortions at their own facilities miles away. The lawsuit filed by the doctors, Lamar Robinson and Jasbir Ahluwalia, contends that the hospital discriminated against them because they perform abortions.</p> <p>Last month, anti-abortion rights activists <a href="https://veneremurcernui.wordpress.com/2014/03/26/help-shut-down-an-abortion-mill-next-tuesday/" target="_blank">announced</a> plans to hold a demonstration outside the hospital to protest its association with Robinson. But on March 31, the day before the protest was to take place, Schuetz canceled the doctors' admitting privileges. "Your practice of voluntary interruption of pregnancies...creates significant exposure and damages to UGHD's reputation within the community," Schuetz wrote to Robinson and and Ahluwalia. In the letter, Schuetz characterized providing abortions as "disruptive behavior." He claimed that the hospital was not equipped to treat complications related to abortion and that the doctors were increasing "the probability of malpractice." Robinson and Ahluwalia allege that Schuetz yielded to pressure from anti-abortion rights activists, promising them the hospital would be "pro-life" and not associate with abortion doctors.</p> </body></html> <p style="font-size: 1.083em;"><a href="/politics/2014/04/texas-hospital-abortion-doctor-lawsuit"><strong><em>Continue Reading &raquo;</em></strong></a></p> Politics Reproductive Rights Top Stories Fri, 18 Apr 2014 18:23:03 +0000 Dana Liebelson 250071 at http://www.motherjones.com Friday Cat Blogging - 18 April 2014 http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2014/04/friday-cat-blogging-18-april-2014 <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd"> <html><body> <p>I have to leave early today for yet another pulmonary checkup, so Friday catblogging comes a little ahead of schedule this week. Here is Domino pretending she doesn't notice the fabulous feline shadow she's casting in the late afternoon sun. But it <em>is</em> fabulous, no?</p> <p><img align="middle" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_domino_2014_04_18.jpg" style="border: 1px solid black; margin: 15px 0px 5px 105px;"></p> </body></html> Kevin Drum Fri, 18 Apr 2014 17:50:04 +0000 Kevin Drum 250126 at http://www.motherjones.com Krauthammer Lights the Way for Tidal Waves of Secret Campaign Cash http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2014/04/krauthammer-lights-way-tidal-waves-secret-campaign-cash <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd"> <html><body> <p>Charles Krauthammer writes today that he used to think there was a simple and elegant solution to the fight over campaign finance reform: "For a long time, a simple finesse offered a rather elegant solution: no limits on giving &mdash; but with full disclosure." <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-the-zealots-win-again/2014/04/17/ac0b6466-c654-11e3-8b9a-8e0977a24aeb_story.html" target="_blank">But now he's changed his mind:</a></p> <blockquote> <p>This used to be my position. No longer. I had not foreseen how donor lists would be used not to ferret out corruption but to pursue and persecute citizens with contrary views. Which corrupts the very idea of full disclosure.</p> <p>It is now an invitation to the creation of enemies lists. Containing, for example, Brendan Eich, forced to resign as Mozilla CEO when it was disclosed that six years earlier he&rsquo;d given $1,000 to support a referendum banning gay marriage. He was hardly the first. Activists compiled blacklists of donors to Proposition 8 and went after them. Indeed, shortly after the referendum passed, both the artistic director of the California Musical Theatre in Sacramento and the president of the Los Angeles Film Festival were hounded out of office.</p> <p>....The ultimate victim here is full disclosure itself. If revealing your views opens you to the politics of personal destruction, then transparency, however valuable, must give way to the ultimate core political good, free expression.</p> <p>Our collective loss. Coupling unlimited donations and full disclosure was a reasonable way to reconcile the irreconcilables of campaign finance. Like so much else in our politics, however, it has been ruined by zealots. What a pity.</p> </blockquote> <p>I wonder if Krauthammer feels the same way about free speech? Or gun rights. Or fair trials. The scope of zealots to abuse the system in those cases is infinitely greater than the sparse, weak-tea "harassment" he points to in the case of campaign finance disclosure.</p> <p>On a larger scale, I realize that the Koch brothers think they've suffered abuse akin to the Holocaust at the hands of Harry Reid, but that's what happens when you enter the political arena in a big way. You take your lumps. That's no reason to allow billions of dollars to influence the political system with not even the slightest shred of accountability for where it's coming from. With allies as weak as Krauthammer, ready to cave at the slightest provocation, campaign finance disclosure is now just the latest victim of conservative goal post moving.</p> </body></html> Kevin Drum Money in Politics Fri, 18 Apr 2014 17:03:55 +0000 Kevin Drum 250141 at http://www.motherjones.com How Will We Know If Obamacare Is a Success? http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2014/04/how-will-we-know-if-obamacare-success <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd"> <html><body> <p>Will Obamacare be a success? Ross Douthat thinks we should all lay down some firm guidelines and hold ourselves to them. <a href="http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/16/for-obamacare-what-counts-as-success/" target="_blank">Here are his:</a></p> <blockquote> <p>For my own part, I&rsquo;ll lay down this marker for the future: If, in 2023, the uninsured rate is where the C.B.O. currently projects or lower, health inflation&rsquo;s five-year average is running below the post-World War II norm, and the trend in the age-adjusted mortality rate shows a positive alteration starting right about now, I will write a post (or send out a Singularity-wide <img align="right" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_obamacare_site_new.jpg" style="border: 1px solid black; margin: 20px 20px 15px 30px;">transmission, maybe) entitled &ldquo;I Was Wrong About Obamacare&rdquo; &mdash; or, if he prefers, just &ldquo;Ezra Klein Was Right.&rdquo;</p> </blockquote> <p>Let's take these one by one. I'd say a reduction in the uninsured of 25 million is a pretty good metric. If, by 2023, the number is substantially below that, it would be a big hit to the law's success. Getting people covered, after all, has always been the law's primary goal. What's more, I'd be surprised if more states don't expand Medicaid and get more aggressive about setting up their own exchanges by 2023. At some point, after all, Republican hysteria about Obamacare just has to burn out. (Doesn't it?)</p> <p>On health inflation, I think running <em>below</em> the post-WWII average is a pretty aggressive standard. That would require health care inflation of about 1 percent above overall inflation. If we manage to keep it to around 2 percent, I'd call that a reasonable result.</p> <p>But my biggest issue is with the age-adjusted mortality rate. I know this is a widely popular metric to point to on both left and right, but I think it's a terrible one. Obamacare exclusively affects those under 65, and mortality just isn't that high in this age group. Reduced mortality is a tiny signal buried in a huge amount of noise, and I very much doubt that we'll see any kind of clear inflection point over the next few years.</p> <p>So what to replace it with? I'm less sure about that. Maybe the TIE guys would like to weigh in. But this is a longtime hobbyhorse of mine. Medical care does people a ton of good even if it doesn't save their lives. Being able to afford your asthma inhaler, or getting a hip replacement, or finding an antidepressant that works&mdash;these all make a huge difference in people's lives. And that's not even accounting for reduced financial strain (and bankruptcies) and lower stress levels that come from the mere knowledge that a doctor is available if you need one&mdash;even if you don't have a life-threatening emergency that requires a trip to the ER.</p> <p>In addition, I'd probably add a few things. Douthat doesn't include any negative metrics, but critics have put forward a whole bunch of disaster scenarios they think Obamacare will be responsible for. It will get harder to see doctors. Pharmaceutical companies will stop innovating. Insurance companies will drop out of the exchanges. Premiums will skyrocket. Etc. Without diving into the weeds on all these possible apocalypses, they count as predictions. If, in 2023, we all have to wait months for a routine appointment, or we can't get the meds we need because drug companies have gone out of business, then Obamacare is a failure regardless of what else it does. I don't think these things will happen, but they're surely on my list of metrics for judging the law's success.</p> <p><strong>UPDATE:</strong> Whoops. It turns out that one of the TIE guys, Austin Frakt, has already weighed in on this. You can read his comments <a href="http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/were-all-a-little-awrong-about-obamacare/" target="_blank">here.</a></p> </body></html> Kevin Drum Health Care Fri, 18 Apr 2014 16:26:12 +0000 Kevin Drum 250131 at http://www.motherjones.com WATCH: GOP Candidate Whacks Obama Bobblehead in Weird New Ad http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2014/04/beau-mccoy-obama-bobblehead-ad <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd"> <html><body> <object height="354" width="630"><param name="movie" value="//www.youtube.com/v/nGFTRCSDVa8?hl=en_US&amp;version=3"> <param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"> <embed allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" height="354" src="//www.youtube.com/v/nGFTRCSDVa8?hl=en_US&amp;version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="630"></embed></object> <p>Nebraska&nbsp;state Sen. Beau McCoy (R), who is campaigning for governor by driving around the state in a white pickup truck with a ladder rack, wants GOP primary voters to know that he'll push back against President Barack Obama's administration. In an ad that hit Nebraska airwaves this week, McCoy confronts an Obama bobblehead doll mounted on a fence post&mdash;and knocks it to the ground with a swift backhand. "More Obamacare in Nebraska? That's the last thing we need," he says before smacking&nbsp;the bobblehead.</p> <p>Then he rides off on his steed.</p> <p>McCoy&nbsp;is a serious underdog in the race to succeed GOP Gov. Dave Heineman. He grabbed just 4.7 percent in a February survey of the field by Harper Polling, well behind attorney general Jon Bruning and former Ameritrade COO Pete Ricketts, the son of big-time Republican <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/05/chicago-cubs-joe-ricketts-super-pac" target="_blank">super-PAC donor Joe Ricketts</a>.</p> </body></html> MoJo Elections Fri, 18 Apr 2014 15:18:38 +0000 Tim Murphy 250106 at http://www.motherjones.com It's Spring, So California Refineries Are Suddenly Having a Few Problems http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2014/04/its-spring-so-california-refineries-are-suddenly-having-few-problems <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd"> <html><body> <p>The swallows may no longer return to Capistrano, but don't worry. We still have an <a href="http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-gas-prices-20140418,0,3834291.story#axzz2zFaPt1xO" target="_blank">annual rite of spring here in California:</a></p> <blockquote> <p>A gallon of regular gasoline hit a statewide average of $4.196 on Thursday, up about 13 cents in a week, according to AAA. That's the highest price since March 2013....Problems at a few refineries in the Golden State undergoing routine spring maintenance have squeezed inventory and boosted prices, analysts said. And only a handful of refineries outside the state are capable of making the ultra-clean type of gasoline mandated in California.</p> <p>"A couple of refinery issues have started to flare up, which is fairly normal this time of the year," said Patrick DeHaan, senior petroleum analyst at GasBuddy.com, a fuel price tracking website.</p> </blockquote> <p>I used to keep a file of clippings of this exact same story running each spring and summer. I mean, literally the exact same story. Every year, right at the point where the winter/summer switch squeezes supplies from out of state, there would suddenly be a bunch of "glitches" that took some local refinery capacity offline and prices would spike.</p> <p>I haven't bothered with that for a while, but seeing this story today brought back memories, so I just thought I'd share. It's an amazing annual coincidence, isn't it?</p> </body></html> Kevin Drum Energy Fri, 18 Apr 2014 15:11:54 +0000 Kevin Drum 250121 at http://www.motherjones.com Doctors Begin to Notice That Health Care Is Really Expensive http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2014/04/doctors-begin-notice-health-care-really-expensive <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd"> <html><body> <p>Andrew Pollack reports that some doctors are starting to notice that the health care they provide can be <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/18/business/treatment-cost-could-influence-doctors-advice.html?hp&amp;_r=0" target="_blank">really, really expensive:</a></p> <blockquote> <p>Saying they can no longer ignore the rising prices of health care, some of the most influential medical groups in the nation are recommending that doctors weigh the costs, not just the effectiveness of treatments, as they make decisions about patient care....Traditionally, guidelines have heavily influenced <img align="right" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_drug_cost.jpg" style="border: 1px solid black; margin: 20px 20px 15px 30px;">the practice of medicine, and the latest ones are expected to make doctors more conscious of the economic consequences of their decisions &mdash; even though there is no obligation to follow them.</p> <p>....Some doctors see a potential conflict in trying to be both providers of patient care and financial overseers. &ldquo;There should be forces in society who should be concerned about the budget, about how many M.R.I.s we do, but they shouldn&rsquo;t be functioning simultaneously as doctors,&rdquo; said Dr. Martin A. Samuels, the chairman of the neurology department at Brigham and Women&rsquo;s Hospital in Boston. He said doctors risked losing the trust of patients if they told patients, &ldquo;I&rsquo;m not going to do what I think is best for you because I think it&rsquo;s bad for the health care budget in Massachusetts.&rdquo;</p> </blockquote> <p>Generally speaking, this is overdue. Some doctors are highly sensitive to patient costs, but some aren't. I'm often surprised at how little doctors know about how much their treatment recommendations cost or how they're delivered. Even if you have the presence of mind to ask, sometimes they simply don't know their own systems well enough find out.</p> <p>That said, I'd recommend baby steps. First, plenty of doctors are already very cost conscious&mdash;but in the wrong direction, pushing lucrative, highly expensive treatments because it's good for their own bottom line. Sometimes it's because they have a part ownership in a diagnostic facility. Other times they're just gaming the system, as some high-volume ophthalmologists do by routinely prescribing Lucentis ($120 reimbursement from Medicare) vs. Avastin ($3 reimbursement from Medicare) for treatment of macular degeneration. Guidelines that rein in this kind of behavior are an obvious target.</p> <p>Second, Congress could allow Medicare more discretion about how much it pays for various drugs. It's flatly crazy that taxpayers are the only people in the entire medical system who, by law, have virtually no leverage to negotiate pricing with pharmaceutical manufacturers.</p> <p>Third, doctors should be more proactive about simply being aware of costs and sharing this information with patients. Some patients care more than others, depending on their incomes and quality of insurance coverage. But every doctor should have at least a basic idea of what different treatment options cost their patients, and they should have it quickly available right in the exam room. Nobody should get stuck with a huge bill&mdash;or even just a large bill&mdash;simply because they got sent to an out-of-network specialist or got prescribed a drug that turned out to be off their provider's formulary.</p> <p>I suspect this is harder than I think. It could only be done by computer, and the software would have to have access to a ton of information. Doctors alone couldn't get it done. But electronic medical records are already taking over the profession, and with some help from the federal government I'll bet this kind of thing could be done. One way or another, cost transparency is the first step toward cost reduction.</p> </body></html> Kevin Drum Health Care Fri, 18 Apr 2014 14:46:23 +0000 Kevin Drum 250111 at http://www.motherjones.com Please Donate to Our Fundraiser http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2014/04/please-donate-our-fundraiser <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd"> <html><body> <p>For those of you who missed it in last week's catblogging post, we haven't yet reached our $100,000 goal, so how about donating a few bucks to our investigative reporting fundraiser? We're a reader-supported nonprofit, which means those dollars aren't going to come from big corporations or super-rich political donors. They'll be small contributions from regular people who read <em>Mother Jones</em>. If you value our reporting&mdash;or even if you only value our catblogging&mdash;please donate $5 to the Mother Jones Investigative Fund. If you can afford it, make it $10. We'll put it to good use. Here's how to make a contribution:</p> <ul> <li>Credit card donations: <a href="https://secure.motherjones.com/fnp/?action=SUBSCRIPTION&amp;list_source=7Z44DRU&amp;extra_don=1" target="_blank">Click here</a> </li> <li>PayPal donations: <a href="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&amp;hosted_button_id=DA2WBARE3WZDG" target="_blank">Click here</a> </li> </ul> <p>Thanks!</p> </body></html> Kevin Drum Fri, 18 Apr 2014 13:00:05 +0000 Kevin Drum 250096 at http://www.motherjones.com