Catherine Crier's Blog, page 10

Republican attempt to prevent an imaginary government takeover.

Pennsylvania’s Voter ID law is nothing more than an attempt to suppress groups who traditionally vote democratic, of which there are 785k registered to vote who lack a photo ID.

According to MotherJones, UFO sightings are 3615 times more common than instances of voter fraud, and yet Republicans are treating this as a dire emergency to prevent some imaginary government takeover.

From The Maddow Blog

Widespread disenfranchising in Pennsylvania

By Steve Benen

About a week ago, Republican Mike Turzai, Pennsylvania’s House Majority Leader, made a startling confession. Boasting about the state’s new voter-ID law, which was ostensibly about the integrity of the electoral process, Turzai bragged that the law “is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania.”

The surprising candor helped reinforce what Democrats have argued all along: these laws are about disenfranchising voters Republicans don’t like. The right usually maintains the trumped up “voter fraud” pretense, but once in a great while, a GOP official will slip and tell the truth.

And the truth, at least in the Keystone State, is that Republicans are prepared to block a huge chunk of the voting-age population from participating in their own democracy.

Nearly 10 percent of Pennsylvania’s registered voters do not have photo identification cards from the state transportation department and could be ineligible to vote in November under the state’s new Republican-backed voter ID law.

The Pennsylvania Department of State reported Tuesday that more than 758,000 registered voters lack a standard driver’s license or a non-driver photo ID. That’s 9.2 percent of the state’s 8.2 million voters.

In Philadelphia, where Democrats outnumber Republicans by about 6-1, 18 percent of the city’s registered voters do not have the state photo ID, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported.

One of them is a 93-year-old widow by the name of Viviette Applewhite.

Can this change the outcome of the 2012 election? Actually, yes.

Most recent polling shows President Obama with fairly strong leads in Pennsylvania, but I suspect none of the surveys account for the fact that Republican state policymakers just put new, unnecessary barriers 9.2% of Pennsylvania’s voters and the ballot box.

The next question, of course, is what the demographic breakdown might be for the 758,000 registered voters in the state who lack photo ID, but if I had to guess, I’d say a very high majority are either poor, students, minorities, or some combination therein. In other words, they’re likely Democratic voters — which is why Republicans approved this law in the first place.

From MotherJones

UFO Sightings Are More Common Than Voter Fraud

The GOP says election fraud is rampant. A close look at the numbers shows there’s no evidence of that.

—By Hamed Aleaziz, Dave Gilson, and Jaeah Lee | July/August 2012 Issue

Since 2001, nearly 1,000 bills that would tighten voting laws have been introduced in 46 states.

24 voting restrictions have passed in 17 states since 2011. This fall, new laws could affect more than 5 million voters in states representing 179 of the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency.

In the past two years, 5 battleground states (Florida, Iowa, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin) have tightened their voting laws.

As of April, 74 restrictive voting laws were on the table in 24 states.

Sources: Brennan Center for Justice, NAACP

Since 2011, 34 states have introduced laws requiring voters to show photo ID, and 9 states have passed photo ID laws, affecting 3.8 million voters.

2.2 million registered voters did not vote in 2008 because they didn’t have proper ID.

*Does not include laws awaiting DOJ clearance, blocked by courts, or not in effect until after 2012. Source: National Conference of State Legislatures

Last year, 12 states introduced laws requiring birth certificates or other proof of citizenship to vote; 3 passed.

Only 48 percent of women have a birth certificate with their current legal name on it.

Texas’ new ID law permits voters to use concealed-handgun licenses as proof of identity, but not state university IDs.

Sources: Brennan Center for Justice; Gabriel R. Sanchez, Stephen A. Nuño, and Matt A. Barreto

80 percent of the 75 million eligible voters who did not take part in the 2008 election were not registered to vote.

In 2008, more than 1/3 of voters cast ballots before Election Day. In 2011, 5 states passed bills to restrict early voting.

States with Election Day registration have 7 to 12 percent greater turnout than states without. Last year, 5 states introduced bills that eliminate Election Day registration.

12 percent of minority voters report registering through voter drives, twice the rate of white voters. In 2011, Florida and Texas passed laws making registration drives much harder to organize.

Florida state Sen. Mike Bennett, a supporter of the tougher voter registration law, said, “I don’t have a problem making it harder. I want people in Florida to want to vote as bad as that person in Africa who walks 200 miles across the desert. This should not be easy.”

Source: Caltech/MIT Voting Technology Project

4 million Americans who have completed prison sentences are ineligible to vote. 38 percent of disenfranchised voters are African American.

13 percent of African American men cannot vote due to criminal records, a rate 7 times the national average.

The United States and Belgium are the only democracies that disenfranchise citizens for lengthy or indefinite periods after completing prison sentences.

To regain their voting rights, released felons in Iowa must provide the address of the judge who convicted them and a credit report showing they have paid off their court costs. “They make the process just about impossible,” said a 40-year old ex-con who’d stolen a soda machine as a teen.

Charts: UFO Sightings Are More Common Than Voter Fraud
What Happens When Digital Voting Machines Fail?
Why a National ID Card Is the Quickest Way To Put the Voter Fraud Wars Behind Us
The Dog That Voted
The GOP’s War on Voting Comes to Washington
Rick Scott Concerned About Non-Citizens, Citizens Voting

While defending its precedent-setting photo ID law before the Supreme Court, Indiana was unable to cite a single instance of voter impersonation in its entire history.

A 2005 report by the American Center for Voting Rights claimed there were more than 100 cases of voter fraud involving 300,000 votes in 2004. A review of the charges turned up only 185 votes that were even potentially fraudulent.

In support of a voter ID law, Kansas Secretary of State (and the legal brains behind a slew of anti-immigration laws) Kris Kobach cited 221 incidents of voter fraud in the state between 1997 and 2010. Yet those cases produced just 7 convictions—none related to impersonating other voters.

Last December, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus declared that Wisconsin is “absolutely riddled with voter fraud.” In fact, the state’s voter fraud rate in 2004 was 0.0002 percent—just 7 votes.

In 2008, John McCain said fraudulent registrations collected by ACORN were “one of the greatest frauds in voter history in this country, maybe destroying the fabric of democracy.” The Congressional Research Service found no proof that anyone improperly registered by ACORN tried to vote.

Federal convictions for election fraud, 2002-05

Voting while ineligible: 18
Voting multiple times: 5
Registration fraud: 3

Between 2000 and 2010, there were:

649 million votes cast in general elections

47,000 UFO sightings

441 Americans killed by lightning

13 credible cases of in-person voter fraud

Special hat tip to craigconnects.org

Additional sources:

A 2005 report by the American Center for Voting Rights…: The Myth of Voter Fraud by Lorraine C. Minnite
13 credible cases…: Justin Levitt, Loyola Law School

Hamed Aleaziz is a former Mother Jones editorial fellow.

Dave Gilson is a senior editor at Mother Jones. Read more of his stories, follow him on Twitter, or contact him at dgilson (at) motherjones (dot) com. RSS | TWITTER

Jaeah Lee is the associate interactive producer at Mother Jones. Read more of her stuff here. Get Jaeah’s RSS feed or follow her on Twitter. RSS | TWITTER

Note to LZ Granderson—real journalists serve the people, not government or elites.

As if journalistic standards haven’t declined enough over the past decade—LZ Granderson’s last CNN opinion column is a cringeworthy indicator of the current state of journalism. Of course we have a duty to scrutinize those who make the rules and why, how they are applied or abused, and whether they enhance or diminish our lives and national values.

Objectivity, accuracy, integrity, and public accountability are powerful tenets of our fourth estate that must be restored within the hearts and minds of Americans. What are your thoughts on how American journalists are handling these responsibilities?

From Salon

CNN journalist: don’t be nosy

A self-mocking column has real value: it expresses the predominant attitude of America’s media class toward secrecy

BY GLENN GREENWALD

LZ Granderson is a regular CNN columnist and contributor, and has written a column this week that — no joke — urges Americans to stop being so “nosy” about all the bad things the U.S. Government does. You just have to read it to believe it:

We are a nosy country.

Though to be fair, it’s not entirely our fault. Between the 24/7 news cycle, social media and reality TV, we have been spoon fed other people’s private business for so long we now assume it’s a given to know everything. And if there are people who choose not to disclose, they must be hiding something. Being told that something’s “none of your business” is slowly being characterized as rude, and if such a statement is coming from the government, it seems incriminating.

Times have changed. Yet, not everything is our business. And in the political arena, there are things that should be and need to be kept quiet. . . .

You see, freedom isn’t entirely free.

It also isn’t squeaky clean.

And sometimes the federal government deems it necessary to get its hands a little dirty in the hopes of achieving something we generally accept as good for the country. . . .

And maybe it’s better for us not to be so nosy, not to know everything because, to paraphrase the famous line from the movie “A Few Good Men,” many of us won’t be able to handle the truth.

This was written by a journalist and published by a media outlet. And this is plainly not satire. What prompted his paean to the virtues of minding our own business was the Congressional investigation into the DOJ’s Fast and Furious gun-running program into Mexico — one that resulted in the deaths of numerous people, including a U.S. agent — but he finds many other examples where we should just stay out of the Government’s way:

We do not want to open Pandora’s Box, not about [Fast and Furious] and certainly not about a bunch of other potentially scandalous things the federal government has been involved with. . . .

We still don’t have access to all of the messy facts surrounding the Iran-Contra scandal that erupted during the Reagan administration. . . .

Lt. Col. Oliver North took one for the team back then, and there’s a good chance Attorney General Eric Holder will have to take one for the team in the Fast and Furious controversy. And by team, I’m not referring to Republicans or Democrats, but rather Americans . . . .

Such as the death of Osama bin Laden. . . .

Were they legal?

Hell no.

Were they effective?

Who knows?

Were they done as a way to keep America safe?

Yes.

North was a fall guy. Not for President Reagan but for all of us. Just as Holder has become a villain to many who are pointing fingers at him.

But to go much beyond the criticism of these men runs the risk of learning that this great nation of ours is heavily involved in doing some things that are not so great.

Think about it: We have allowed weapons to cross the Mexican border and into the hands of criminals for years. Many of these weapons were involved in killing innocent Mexicans. There’s nothing very admirable about that. But the truth is, it’s very American.

By allowing guns to infiltrate Mexico’s drug cartel, we thought we could trace them up the ladder to the leaders. Take off the head and the body dies. As for the innocent people who lost their lives? Collateral damage. That’s the uncomfortable backstory to this scandal. And there are likely other operations like it in our nation’s history that we don’t even have a clue about.

And maybe it’s better for us not to be so nosy, not to know everything because, to paraphrase the famous line from the movie “A Few Good Men,” many of us won’t be able to handle the truth.

I trust not much needs to be said about this. It mocks itself. The authoritarianism on display is just cringe-inducing. I suppose the only thing surprising about it is that someone who works in journalism, and a media corporation that claims to do journalism, would publish something that admits to thinking this way.

The reason I note this is not the entertainment value of marveling at something so inane (at least not primarily). It’s because this is a very common mindset in the journalist class, among media personalities with much more influential platforms than Granderson’s.

Recall that The Washington Post‘s Richard Cohen condemned the investigation into the Plame leak on the ground that “as with sex or real estate, it is often best to keep the lights off.” The heralded tough-guy journalist Tim Russert said that all of his conversations with government officials are presumptively off the record, and he feels free to report them only if they give him explicit permission (“when I talk to senior government officials on the phone, it’s my own policy our conversations are confidential. If I want to use anything from that conversation, then I will ask permission“).

Worse, you can count on one hand the number of establishment American journalists who have vocally denounced Obama’s war on whistleblowers. That’s true even though the Obama administration has targeted one of the nation’s most accomplished investigative reporters (James Risen), while another (Jane Mayer) has explained that a prime goal of this whistleblower war is to impede and even criminalize investigative journalism (“when our sources are prosecuted, the news-gathering process is criminalized, so it’s incumbent upon all journalists to speak up”). Even fewer have condemned the always-escalating witch hunt, now being led by Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, to further intimidate and deter whistleblowing leaks and fortify the wall of government secrecy even more.

Just as revealingly, the single most-hated figure in Western media circles is the person who enabled more disclosure, transparency and scoops about the West’s most powerful government and corporate factions than all Western media outlets combined: Julian Assange (Bradley Manning isn’t far behind). This is the case even though successful efforts to prosecute WikiLeaks would be the gravest threat to a free press in decades, literally — something about which journalists, with rare exceptions, have been largely silent if not supportive.

Recall that on the day that WikiLeaks began publishing diplomatic cables — revealing all sorts of deceit, corruption and illegality — CNN’s Wolf Blitzer was completely indifferent to the revelations themselves, but was furious that the U.S. Government allowed these disclosures to take place and thus forced him and his viewers to learn what the U.S. Government and its allies were doing in the dark. Or recall the debate I had with CNN’s Jessica Yellin and Fran Townsend in which both insisted that WikiLeaks should be criminally prosecuted for the leaks it enabled. Or just survey the bizarrely personal, unprofessional and falsehood-filled expressions of contempt for Assange that have been spewing forth from the British media class, many of whom (not coincidentally) were and are ardent, public supporters of the war policies he helped to expose and subvert and, more generally, religious believers in the inherent Goodness of the West and its governments’ conduct in the world.

This is the glaring paradox at the heart of the establishment media class. They parade around as adversarial watchdogs whose prime role is to foster transparency and shine a light on what is done in secret. But there is literally no group more slavishly devoted to the virtues of government secrecy than they. LZ Granderson’s demand that we keep our nosy noses out of what the Government does (like Richard Cohen’s similar demand that we keep the lights off) is notable only because it’s a more explicit and honest expression of this ethos than they usually admit to.

* * * * *

This week’s Newsweek lists the Top 10 people in 10 different digital/online categories, each determined by a committee of experts in the field (what it calls a “Digital Power Index”). For the “Revolutionaries” category, Julian Assange is listed as #1, Anonymous is #8, and Bradley Manning is #9. That category and the others can be seen here.

There are still a few tickets remaining for the July 2 event I’ll be doing at the Powerhouse Arena in Brooklyn, beginning at 7:00 pm and hosted by the superb political comedian Jamie Kilstein; ticket and event information are here, and I encourage anyone in New York to come. I’ll also be speaking in Chicago this Friday evening, at 7:00 pm on the Surveillance State; event information for that is here.

UPDATE: In April, 2009, on ABC News‘ This Week program, George Will condemned disclosures about the Bush torture program by saying that “the problem with transparency is that it’s transparent for the terrorists as well,” whereas Peggy Noonan unleashed this bit of journalistic wisdom: “Some things in life need to be mysterious. Sometimes you need to just keep walking.” Who decides to work in journalism with those attitudes? It’s easy to mock Granderson, but what he said is — obviously — a sentiment shared by large numbers of America’s most prominent establishment journalists.

Follow Glenn Greenwald on Twitter: @ggreenwald.

War on Drugs discussion reopened in the wake of Fast and Furious.

Despite decades fighting the drug wars, millions of Americans use cannabis just as others use alcohol. When listening to arguments opposing its legalization, substitute ‘alcohol’ for ‘marijuana’ and you’ll hear the same words that were exchanged almost 100 years ago.

Now that the Fast and Furious controversy has once again opened the discussion on Mexican violence, perhaps it’s time we discuss one of the greatest failures in American public policy. What are your thoughts on the War on Drugs?

From The Atlantic

The Policy That Killed 100 Times as Many Mexicans as Fast and Furious

by CONOR FRIEDERSDORF

For political reasons, GOP partisans suddenly care a lot about dead foreigners. They should turn their attention to the war on drugs.

Self-serving political considerations can have the salutary effect of spurring Congress to investigate wrongdoing in the executive branch, as in the House GOP’s Fast and Furious investigation.

It can also bring out the partisan’s inner humanitarian.

Before Fast and Furious, I never recall the conservative movement giving much thought to dead Mexicans. But now that the body count can be attributed to a bureaucracy run by Democrats?

The right is invoking the tragic deaths of foreigners with great frequency.

Said Texas Governor Rick Perry, “We’ve had over 300 Mexican nationals killed directly attributable to this Fast and Furious operation, where they brought those guns into Mexico. A former Marine and a Border Patrol agent by the name of Brian Terry lost his life. With Watergate you had a second-rate burglary.”

Mark Steyn brought up the body count while complaining about the liberal reaction to the investigation. “Insofar as they know anything about Fast and Furious, it’s something to do with the government tracking the guns of fellows like those Alabama ‘Segregation Forever’ nuts, rather than a means by which hundreds of innocent Rigoberta Menchús south of the border were gunned down with weapons sold to their killers by liberal policymakers of the Obama administration,” he wrote.

There has been enough commentary of that kind that political satirists are starting to notice. Said Bill Maher on his HBO show, “First of all, let me just say, Republicans don’t care about dead Mexicans.” His comments spurred outraged posts in the conservative blogosphere. But the problem isn’t that he was wrong, so much as that his biting remark ought to have been broader. Democrats don’t care about dead Mexicans either assuming a reasonable definition of “care.”

Abstractly, do they regret it when foreigners die?

Sure. So do Republicans.

Does either party put forth any effort to change the American policy that results in more dead Mexicans than any other?

Nope.

They talk about how tragic it is that 300 Mexican nationals were killed by Fast and Furious. But they keep right on supporting the war on drugs. President Bush and President Obama both insisted that our southern neighbor to keep fighting it, and our Latin American allies too, though they’re despairing.

Since the 2006 crackdown on cartels that the United States urged on, between 35,000 and 40,000 people have been killed by drug violence in Mexico alone. The drug cartels are powerful enough to cause that kind of carnage only because Americans keep buying their drugs, even as U.S. politicians and voters back domestic policies such that all narcotics transactions take place on a black market that inevitably empowers murderous criminals. It’s an unintended consequence, to be sure, but after all these decades is that really an excuse anymore?

We all know that prohibition fuels violence.

When the prohibitionist worries that legalizing drugs would increase drug use and addiction, that U.S. productivity might fall, and that it would send a bad moral signal, their argument is effectively, “The harm legalization might do is worse than tens of thousands of foreigners dying, worse than decades-long wars with cartels, worse than whole regions being destabilized.”

It’s a very easy calculation to make when the dead people are mostly far away, in foreign countries or in bad neighborhoods you don’t pass through.

Everyone seems to agree, for purposes of arguing on cable news, that Fast and Furious was indefensible — that it was illegitimate to risk the lives of Mexicans in an effort to bring down the cartels.

I certainly concur.

I also think the policy that killed tens of thousands of Mexicans over the last few years is illegitimate. But both political parties are inextricably implicated in that policy, so no one cares about those dead foreigners. (They don’t think much about the Americans prohibition kills either.)

Our drug policies do far more to cause violence in Mexico than Fast and Furious ever did. That doesn’t mean gun-walking wasn’t scandalous. It just means the bigger scandal has yet to be addressed.

CONOR FRIEDERSDORF – Conor Friedersdorf is a staff writer at The Atlantic, where he focuses on politics and national affairs. He lives in Venice, California, and is the founding editor of The Best of Journalism, a newsletter devoted to exceptional nonfiction.

From The Economist

The path to decriminalisation

Jun 1st 2012 by E.G. | AUSTIN

ON TUESDAY, Beto O’Rourke, a former city councilman from El Paso, defeated the longtime incumbent Silvestre Reyes in the Democratic primary for Texas’s 16th congressional district. It was probably the biggest upset in the state, and an outcome that has attracted national attention, for a simple reason: Mr O’Rourke, who will almost certainly win the general election in November, supports legalising marijuana.

While not entirely unprecedented, this is an outlying opinion among politicians. Polling shows that fully half of Americans now support legalising marijuana. Yet among national office-holders, the figure is about 0-1%. As Paul Waldman argues, the disparity might arise from the fact that there aren’t really any electoral incentives for the politician who wants to go to bat on this issue, but there are plenty of risks—the risk of being seen as soft on crime, the risk of being seen as a crank, etc. Mr O’Rourke is perhaps insulated from these risks, because this is manifestly an issue that affects the district he hopes to represent, rather than some kind of dilettantish libertarian thing. He and Susie Byrd, also a former city representative, published a book last year describing the devastation of Mexico’s drug war, particularly in El Paso’s twinned city of Juarez, and arguing that decriminalising marijuana would be the best way to dismantle the black market that fuels the trade. The Economist supports decriminalising drugs for similar reasons, and such arguments are more compelling than complaints about personal freedom which, while valid, can come across as tasteless and self-absorbed. You can’t open a paper from Juarez without reading about somebody being beheaded or disemboweled.

It would be wrong to interpret the race as an up-and-down vote on drug policy: as suggested before, this was , and the outcome might have hinged on turnout. And it would be surprising if a freshman representative single-handedly changed America’s drug policy. Still, Mr O’Rourke’s win is significant. The debate over decriminalising marijuana might have similar contours as the debate over legalising gay marriage, albeit for different reasons. Ten years ago, that is, gay marriage was widely seen as an extremely marginal issue, if it was seen at all; five years ago it was a mainstream but controversial issue; today, a majority of Americans are in favour, and top-level politicians (often a lagging indicator of social change) are coming out in favour of the cause too. At every step of the way, proponents helped their friends and neighbours get used to the idea, not just by making reasoned arguments, but by serving as living proof that the cause in question was not alien. With regard to drug policy, having elected officials who support decriminalisation or other alternatives to the war on drugs means that the spectrum of mainstream public opinion is expanding. That will make it easier for others to come around too.

 

Mitch McConnell: U.S. health care ‘already the finest… in the world’

If United States health care is “already the finest… in the world,” why then do we have 30 million still uninsured, why is ours the most expensive, and why are the outcomes worse than those in many other countries?

The answer is simple–our health care system clearly needs reform. Instead of facing the truth, conservatives like Senator Mitch McConnell and House Speaker John Boehner are attempting to put the brakes on progress without offering a viable alternative.

From The Huffington Post

Mitch McConnell On 30 Million Uninsured: ‘That Is Not The Issue’

By Arthur Delaney

WASHINGTON — Republicans have said repeatedly that the landmark health care reform law, upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court last week, must be repealed and replaced. But the GOP leader in the U.S. Senate gave a surprising answer on “Fox News Sunday” when asked how Republicans would provide health care coverage to 30 million uninsured Americans.

“That is not the issue,” Sen. Mitch McConnell said. “The question is how to go step by step to improve the American health care system. It is already the finest health care system in the world.”

“Fox News Sunday” host Chris Wallace interrupted, “You don’t think 30 million uninsured is an issue?”

“We’re not going to turn the American health care system into a western European system,” McConnell said. “That’s exactly what is at the heart of Obamacare. They want to … have the federal government take over all American health care. The federal government can’t handle Medicare or Medicaid.”

Wallace pressed McConnell, noting that the Affordable Care Act will prohibit insurance companies from not offering plans to individuals with pre-existing health conditions. “If you repeal Obamacare, how will you protect those people with pre-existing conditions?”

“Over the half of the states have high-risk pools that deal with that issue,” McConnell said, assuring Wallace that the state programs could cover the tens of millions of uninsured Americans who have pre-existing health conditions.

Thirty-five states now have high-risk pools, covering about 208,000 people. Those policies are open to individuals with pre-existing health issues but often come with high premiums, waiting periods and coverage exclusions for certain conditions.

The Affordable Care Act included a new federal high-risk pool (modeled on the state plans) called the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan. So far, only 67,000 Americans have enrolled. The program will be phased out in 2014 when the law’s broader provisions kick in.

Don Stewart, a spokesman for McConnell, offered some additional information about Senate Republican leader’s position on health care insurance.

“If you watched the interview, it was clear that the Leader believes we need to focus on lowering costs, first and foremost,” Stewart said in an email. “That is the best way to help the 250 million Americans who have insurance today, and to help the 47 million who do not. We need to make it affordable, but Obamacare — in its rush to expand coverage to everyone — actually drives up health care costs by $300 billion. If health care is more affordable, more of the uninsured can find coverage.”

There are as many as 25 million Americans who lack insurance and have pre-existing conditions, and all together 50 million people are uninsured, according to government estimates. The White House expects 30 million Americans to gain insurance coverage as a result of the new law.

From Mediaite

Norah O’Donnell Hammers John Boehner: ‘When You Repeal [Obamacare], What Are You Going To Replace It With?’

by Josh Feldman

CBS News correspondent Norah O’Donnell faced off with House Speaker John Boehner in a contentious interview that focused on the Supreme Court’s ruling upholding the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act and what the Republicans’ alternatives are. O’Donnell repeatedly pushed Boehner to say specifically what he likes and dislikes about the law, and asking him point-blank, “when you repeal it, what are you going to replace it with?”

Boehner said that the notion of government being able to mandate that Americans have to buy a product is “shocking,” but conceded that he respects the decision of the Supreme Court. On a more optimistic note, he says that at least the ruling has given new life to Republican efforts to get the law repealed once and for all. O’Donnell said that so far, Congress has voted 30 times to repeal Obamacare (a figure Boehner himself cites on his website). She asked him, “What’s one more vote going to do? What’s the point?”

Boehner explained he wants to be able to show the American people the Republican party is fully committed to repealing the law. And while it may have been ruled constitutional, Boehner pointed out, the Supreme Court decision never said if it was a good law or not. O’Donnell asked if there was anything good about the law. Boehner admitted there are good parts of it, which O’Donnell honed in on to ask the Speaker specifically what he would keep and what he would cut.

O’Donnell brought up provisions included in the bill like free mammograms provided under Medicare and staying on your parents’ insurance until you turn 26, the latter of which Boehner affirmed his support for. When O’Donnell tried to press him further, Boehner insisted all the Republicans would do is take a “common-sense, step-by-step approach to replacing this law.” As for the issue of preexisting conditions, Boehner echoed what Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said on Fox News Sunday, that state-by-state high risk polls are a preferable alternative to how it is done in the current law.

Trying once again to push Boehner into getting specific, O’Donnell asked him, “when you repeal this, what are you going to replace it with?”

Boehner went back to insisting on a “common-sense” approach, and claimed that the Affordable Care Act is driving up health care costs all over the country and making it harder for small business to hire workers. O’Donnell asked Boehner to elaborate on the second point, to which the Speaker said they’re being “required to [either] buy health insurance or pay a fine.” He quickly corrected himself by saying it’s apparently a tax now.

After a back-and-forth on just exactly how the law affects small businesses, O’Donnell called Boehner out for not being specific enough with his answers.

“When I talked about some of the specific provisions, you said you want a common-sense approach, but why not be specific about exactly what kind of protections you want to provide individuals? You won’t be specific. Why won’t you say you won’t prevent discrimination against preexisting conditions?”

Boehner went down a list of other specific issues he thinks were not properly addressed by the Affordable Care Act, including medical malpractice reform. O’Donnell told Boehner that if there are some parts of the law that he likes, why can’t he just work together with the president on health care reform instead of pushing for repeal. Boehner insisted that in order for real reform, the current law needs to be “ripped out by its roots” and Congress should start over.

Watch the video below, courtesy of CBS:

Happy Independence Day!

The Declaration of Independence, written thirteen years before our government was established, was the justification for both revolution and the founding of a nation. It clearly describes the Founders’ vision of a free, self-governing society, and distinguishes our inherent right to separate from England as free men. All of the values we cherish–liberty, opportunity, self-determination–are contained within this document.

As you take a moment to reflect upon our independence, make it a point to consider how far we have come as a nation, and how much further we still have yet to go. Today is a day on which all Americans should proclaim independence from stale rhetoric and divisive politics and join together to build of our future. We need to quit asserting we want to take our nation back; instead, we must take it forward.

 

 

Read the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776

2012 Texas GOP platform seeks repeal of Voting Rights Act, critical thinking skills.

Not only does The Texas Republican Party want to repeal the Voting Rights Act of 1965, but its 2012 platform also bans multicultural programs and critical thinking skills from  the primary school curriculum.

Perhaps PA State Senator Daylin Leach’s comment from earlier this week bears repeating for the Texas GOP: “If you have to stop people voting [or thinking] to win elections, your ideas suck.”

From The Huffington Post

Texas Republican Party Platform Calls For Repeal Of Voting Rights Act Of 1965

by Gene Demby

The Texas Republican Party has released its official platform for 2012, and the repeal of the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965 is one of its central planks.

“We urge that the Voter Rights Act of 1965 codified and updated in 1973 be repealed and not reauthorized,” the platform reads.

Under a provision of the Voting Rights Act, certain jurisdictions must obtain permission from the federal government — called “preclearance” — before they change their voting rules. The rule was put in place in jurisdictions with a history of voter disenfranchisement.

Some elected officials, including Texas Gov. Rick Perry, a Republican, have since argued that the rules put an unfair burden on certain places and not others. Texas is one of nine states that must obtain preclearance before changing its electoral guidelines.

The declaration by the state’s GOP comes as Texas continues protracted fights over voting rights on several legal fronts. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder blocked the state’s recent voter I.D. law, citing discrimination against minority voters. And a federal judge earlier this month heard motions in a lawsuit filed by Project Vote, a voting rights group that tries to expand voting in low-income communities, that claimed the state’s laws made it illegally difficult to register new voters.

Critics say voter I.D. laws like the one in Texas make casting a ballot particularly cumbersome for the young, seniors and the poor, who are less likely to have official state identification, as such laws often require. Others have noted the I.D. laws will reduce turnout among groups that tend to vote for Democrats, like young people, the poor, African Americans and Hispanics.

Numerous independent studies — including one undertaken by Greg Abbott, Texas’s Republican attorney general, who claimed there was an “epidemic” of electoral fraud –  have found voter identification fraud to be exceedingly rare. According to Wayne Slater of the Dallas Morning News, Abbott’s two-year investigation yielded 26 cases of alleged fraud, but two-thirds of those turned out to be technical infractions in which the voters were eligible to vote and their votes were legally cast. In all the fraud cases but one, the voters at question were black or Hispanic. All of them were Democrats.

At a discussion with a group of journalists last week, Nicole Austen-Hillery of New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice laid out why the pitched fight over voter I.D. laws and similar measures has become so politically important in this election cycle: “Of the states that have made these changes, those states contain 78 percent of all the electoral votes that are required to elect the next president of the United States.”

LOOK: Texas Republican Party 2012 Platform:

 

STOCK Act bandaid won’t stem wide-spread corruption as voters’ deficit of trust continues to grow.

It seems insider trading isn’t just for corporate fat cats — our Congressional lawmakers have been getting in on the action too. This Washington Post story of 34 members of Congress who changed their financial portfolios a total of 166 times immediately before key economic legislation in 2008 is simply nauseating.

The STOCK Act bandaid won’t stem wide-spread corruption as voters’ “deficit of trust” continues to grow.

From The Washington Post

Lawmakers reworked financial portfolios after talks with Fed, Treasury officials

By Kimberly Kindy, Scott Higham, David S. Fallis and Dan Keating

In January 2008, President George W. Bush was scrambling to bolster the American economy. The subprime mortgage industry was collapsing, and the Dow Jones industrial average had lost more than 2,000 points in less than three months.

House Minority Leader John A. Boehner became the Bush administration’s point person on Capitol Hill to negotiate a $150 billion stimulus package.

In the days that followed, Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. made frequent phone calls and visits to Boehner. Neither Paulson nor Boehner would publicly discuss the progress of their negotiations to shore up the nation’s financial portfolio.

On Jan. 23, Boehner (R-Ohio) met Paulson for breakfast. Boehner would later report the rearrangement of a portion of his own financial portfolio made on that same day. He sold between $50,000 and $100,000 from a more aggressive mutual fund and moved money into a safer investment.

The next day, the White House unveiled the stimulus package.

Boehner is one of 34 members of Congress who took steps to recast their financial portfolios during the financial crisis after phone calls or meetings with Paulson; his successor, Timothy F. Geithner; or Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, according to a Washington Post examination of appointment calendars and congressional disclosure forms.

The lawmakers, many of whom held leadership positions and committee chairmanships in the House and Senate, changed portions of their portfolios a total of 166 times within two business days of speaking or meeting with the administration officials. The party affiliation of the lawmakers was about evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans, 19 to 15.

The period covered by The Post analysis was a grim one for the U.S. economy, and many people rushed to reconfigure their investment portfolios. The financial moves by the members of Congress are permitted under congressional ethics rules, but some ethics experts said they should refrain from taking actions in their financial portfolios when they might know more than the public.

“They shouldn’t be making these trades when they know what they are going to do,” said Richard W. Painter, who was chief ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush. “And what they are going to do is then going to influence the market. If this was going on in the private sector or it was going on in the executive branch, I think the SEC would be investigating.”

Boehner, now the speaker of the House, declined to discuss his transactions. His spokesman said they did not pose a conflict because a financial adviser executed them and they were made in diversified mutual funds. Other lawmakers also said their financial advisers handled their trades. They said that the timing of the trades and the conversations was “coincidental” and that they did not adjust their portfolios based on what they were told by the administration officials.

Questions about conflicts of interest and possible insider trading on Capitol Hill prompted Congress to pass the Stock Act this year. The act specifically bans lawmakers, their staffs and top executive branch officials from knowingly using confidential information gleaned from their legislative roles to benefit themselves, their family members or friends.

The act does not prohibit lawmakers from trading stocks in companies that appear before them or from reworking their portfolios after briefings with senior administration officials. Top executive branch officials are banned from investing in industries they oversee and can influence — for example, Fed chairmen are prohibited from investing in the financial sector.

The Post analysis did not turn up evidence of insider trading. Instead, the review shows that lawmakers routinely make trades that raise questions about whether members of Congress have an investing advantage over members of the public.

“Members of Congress are still loosey-goosey about what they require of themselves,” said Painter, who teaches securities law at the University of Minnesota. “I think it’s time for Congress to impose the same rules on themselves that they impose on others. The Stock Act doesn’t do that.”

A shift to Treasury securities

In late 2006, Congress started crafting legislation to overhaul Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, a major effort to stem a rising tide of defaults on risky loans given to home buyers with poor credit.

As Congress worked to rein in the two government-sponsored lenders, Fannie and Freddie pushed back with aggressive lobbying campaigns, stalling the effort in early 2007.

Paulson started working the Hill, trying to break the deadlock and win support for the revisions. He called and met with a number of members of Congress, including Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), on this and other reform efforts.

Paulson and Nelson spoke on Jan. 10. The next day, Nelson sold between $250,000 and $500,000 in Lehman Brothers certificates of deposit. (Congressional financial disclosure forms list only approximate ranges.) Nelson also purchased between $100,000 and $200,000 in Treasury notes, a safer investment.

On Feb. 12, Paulson met at 4 p.m. with Nelson in the lawmaker’s office in the Hart Senate Office Building. That day, Nelson bought $50,000 to $100,000 in Treasury bills.

That year, Nelson had only one other call with Paulson and no other meetings, records show. He made 103 other trades during the year, eight of which exceeded $100,000.

Nelson declined to be interviewed. A spokesman said that the senator discussed only policy matters related to disabled veterans during the call and meeting with the Treasury secretary and that the senator learned nothing that would have influenced his trades.

“Like everyone in Congress, Senator Nelson is bound by the laws, rules and guidelines established for members of Congress,” Nelson spokesman Jake Thompson said in a statement. “He carefully follows both the spirit and intent of them. He has not, and would not, have conversations with Executive Branch officials about matters affecting his personal finances.”

Under congressionally imposed ethics laws that cover Treasury secretaries, Paulson and Geithner would have been prohibited from making the same investments. Congress prohibits Treasury secretaries from investing in financial institutions or Treasury securities.

Nelson “has often sought and had one-on-one conversations with numerous cabinet secretaries under both President Bush and Obama on dozens of issues before Congress,” Thompson said in an e-mail. “That’s what good legislators do, they seek dialogue and understanding at the senior level about local, state and federal policy matters, as well as foreign policy issues.”

Paulson, through a spokeswoman, declined to discuss his conversations with members of Congress during the financial crisis.

Lowering risk

Toward the end of the summer of 2007, the foundation of the nation’s real estate market started to shake. On Aug. 6, the American Home Mortgage Investment Corp., the nation’s 10th-largest mortgage firm, filed for bankruptcy.

Three days later, Paulson was headed to work at the Treasury Department when he received word that the U.S. mortgage crisis and tightening credit markets were spreading to Europe, he would later write in his autobiography, “On the Brink: Inside the Race to Stop the Collapse of the Global Financial System.”

Paulson and Bernanke put their staffs on full alert. The Fed crafted a loan package for the nation’s banking industry. Treasury lawyers scrambled to figure out a way to stabilize the increasingly volatile markets, Paulson recalled.

On Aug. 9, the Dow fell nearly 400 points, its second-biggest one-day drop in five years. The next day, the Fed issued a statement pledging to “provide reserves as necessary . . . to promote trading in the federal funds market.”

At 4:30 p.m. on Aug. 13, 2007, as the markets closed, Paulson called Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), chairman of the Budget Committee, according to the Treasury secretary’s appointment calendar.

The next day, Conrad adjusted his family’s portfolio for the first time in four months. Conrad reported that a total of between $150,000 and $300,000 was shifted out of three mutual funds in his wife’s 401(k) retirement account. He moved $100,000 to $250,000 of that money into a lower-risk money-market fund within the retirement account.

That year, Conrad had two other calls and one meeting with Paulson. He reported 29 other transactions during the year, including three that exceeded $50,000.

Conrad said his conversation with Paulson had nothing to do with his trades the next day.

“There is absolutely no connection between the two,” Conrad said. “Our records show that Paulson called me about the debt limit extension and that had nothing to do with the reason for my making the trades.

“The decision that my wife and I made with our financial advisers to diversify into lower-risk investments had everything to do with what was happening that was on the front pages over every paper, including yours. His call to me had absolutely nothing to do with those issues.”

Trading amid stimulus plans

By the beginning of 2008, the Bush administration had decided to take a more aggressive approach to confront the growing economic crisis. On Jan. 2, the president told Paulson to consult with members of Congress, investors and the nation’s business leaders to come up with a strategy.

“This was a touchy point for Republicans, but the president was not an ideologue: He wanted to see quick results,” Paulson wrote in his autobiography

On Jan. 18, Bush announced a proposed $145 billion stimulus package designed to give the economy a “shot in the arm.” Paulson reached out to Republican and Democratic lawmakers in an attempt to strike a compromise. The House, not the Senate, would handle the negotiations with Paulson and the White House.

Boehner, the House minority leader at the time, would be the Republican point man on the Bush proposal; then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) would represent the Democrats.

In the days that followed, Paulson made frequent calls and visits to Capitol Hill, according to his appointment calendars. He called Boehner on Jan. 21 and again the following morning at 10:45, shortly after Paulson met with Bush to discuss the status of global financial markets. In public, Boehner and Pelosi disclosed little, telling reporters their negotiations were confidential.

On Jan. 23, Paulson had a breakfast meeting with Boehner and Pelosi. The two House leaders then held a brief news conference.

“A lot of plans were discussed,” Boehner said. “But nothing will be agreed to until everything is agreed to.”

Later that day, Boehner, Pelosi and Paulson got together again, this time for a two-hour, closed-door meeting. When they emerged, they told reporters that they couldn’t discuss the details of their discussions.

“We’re just not at that point,” Pelosi said.

“We’re hopeful,” Boehner said.

“I’m not going to comment,” Paulson said.

Boehner would later report that two adjustments were made to his financial portfolio on that day: between $50,000 and $100,000 was transferred out of the more aggressive mutual fund. He also reported purchases of between $50,000 and $100,000 in a less risky fund, spread over that day and four others throughout the year.

That year, Boehner had 46 other calls and one other meeting with Paulson. Boehner made 42 other transactions during the year, including one that exceeded $50,000.

Pelosi, who frequently buys and sells in the market, made no trades around the time she spoke with Paulson, according to her financial disclosure forms.

Boehner’s spokesman, Michael Steel, said the congressman’s trades are handled by an investment adviser. Steel declined to identify the adviser or disclose how often they discuss investment strategies. He said they did not discuss the mutual fund moves that were made on Jan. 23.

“The speaker has no say whatsoever on day-to-day investment decisions,” Steel said. He also noted that mutual funds have been exempted from stricter reporting requirements under the Stock Act because they are broadly diversified and have long been considered to be a “safe haven” for lawmakers.

“The issue, or perception, of insider trading is a moot point,” Steel said.

Making adjustments

On Jan. 24, 2008, the day after Boehner’s trades, the White House formally announced that it had reached a tentative agreement with the House on the stimulus package, which had risen to $150 billion. The proposal, approved by the House, called for giving tax breaks to businesses and rebates to taxpayers.

When the proposal went to the Senate, lawmakers began to make revisions and additions. Several Democrats wanted to attach spending provisions, including one that would extend unemployment benefits. Republicans warned that the passage of the plan was being placed in jeopardy.

Paulson worked the phones to salvage the deal. He called Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) three times on Jan. 28, and McConnell called Paulson once that day. On Jan. 29, Paulson called McConnell five more times.

The next day, Paulson again called McConnell five times, and McConnell called him three times. The bill had become bogged down in the Senate as lawmakers continued to spar over adding spending measures to the package.

The next day, Paulson called McConnell twice. Senate Democrats pledged to force votes the following week over whether to expand the package, setting the stage for what the White House, Paulson and McConnell had been hoping to avoid: a showdown that could scuttle the deal.

“The stimulus train is grinding to a halt here in the U.S. Senate,” McConnell told reporters on Jan. 31.

That day, McConnell would later report making four trades, each worth between $15,000 and $50,000 in his portfolio, rearranging four mutual funds. He reported selling shares in a one international fund, buying shares in another and reconfiguring his investments in two domestic funds. He hadn’t made a trade since Nov. 20, 2007, and he would not make another until April 14, 2008.

That year, McConnell had 44 other calls and three meetings with Paulson. McConnell made 11 other transactions during the year, including two that exceeded $15,000.

McConnell declined requests for an interview. His spokesman, Michael Brumas, said the senator does not own specific stocks, to avoid the appearance of a conflict, and he does not make his own trades to his funds, relying instead on the advice of an investment adviser.

The adviser, who works for Merrill Lynch in Louisville, Barry Barlow, said he conducts periodic readjustments of McConnell’s portfolio. The moves he made at the end of that January were suggested by Merrill Lynch, not the senator. Barlow said he couldn’t recall whether he spoke to McConnell before the readjustment, but he said the senator frequently tells him to stay away from purchasing individual stocks, to avoid the appearance of a conflict.

“He invests in broad-based mutual funds with hundreds of securities,” said Barlow, who was given permission to speak about the trades by McConnell.

McConnell’s attorney, Russell Coleman, said the trades were authorized by a staff member who worked for the senator. She relayed Barlow’s request to McConnell, who then gave Barlow permission to make the trades, Coleman said.

“They never spoke directly to the senator,” he said. “It’s an important distinction.”

Bailing on bonds

During the spring and summer of 2008, another sector of the economy began to wobble: the market for municipal bonds, which local and state governments sell to raise capital. Normally considered to be one of the safest investments on Wall Street, the muni market was falling victim to the economic crisis.

As chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) had the power to hold congressional hearings and introduce legislation aimed at calming and reforming the bond market. In March, he held a congressional hearing titled “Municipal Bond Turmoil: Impact on Cities, Towns and States.” In June, when the bond market was still in turmoil, Frank introduced two overhaul bills. Bond experts said the market was running scared.

“Investors were leaving en masse. Their fear was everything was coming apart at the seams, and this was next,” Marilyn Cohen, co-author of “Surviving the Bond Bear Market: Bondland’s Nuclear Winter,” told The Post.

Frank told The Post that problems with the bond market were twofold. Rating agencies were applying tougher standards to municipal bonds than private-sector investments, resulting in less favorable ratings. And bond insurers were taking on riskier investments, causing them to accumulate historically high debt. Investors feared the insurers would begin defaulting on bonds.

Despite Frank’s efforts, both bills stalled and fears about the bond market continued.

On Friday, Oct. 17, Paulson called Frank after the markets had closed. Frank said that the discussions probably centered on the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, known as TARP, and how banks would qualify for funds, the details of which Paulson revealed that following Monday, Oct. 20.

“We had one fight over TARP, and it was over the use of funds,” Frank said. “I wanted some of them to help with foreclosures.”

That day, Frank instructed his broker to raise cash for him, and the broker liquidated nearly $93,000 in Massachusetts municipal bonds in three separate transactions. The investments represented nearly 10 percent of his financial portfolio, according to his financial disclosure form. He said he moved the money into his campaign coffers because his support for TARP that year had placed him in a politically vulnerable position.

Under congressionally imposed rules, Treasury secretaries cannot make the moves that Frank did.

That year, Frank had seven other calls and three meetings with Paulson.

Frank said he worked in Congress to lower interest rates on municipal bonds, working against his own interests, and said his conversations with Paulson had nothing to do with his personal financial decisions.

“Were these things tied to the phone calls? No,” Frank said. “They didn’t tell you what was a good investment or a bad investment. They would tell you what was good or bad for the economy.”

Frank said he eventually was reimbursed by the campaign and reinvested in Massachusetts municipal bonds, because bonds are safe and provide good tax benefits. The bond market survived the crisis without defaults.

“To the extent that people said, ‘Oh, you were protecting your investment,’ I was protecting the financial well-being of Massachusetts,” Frank said. “What the hell else am I supposed to do?”

 

For-profit prisons stand to make a killing on the SB1070 ruling.

We are quick to look the other way when undocumented workers take on difficult and dangerous jobs that most Americans will not do, and yet we’re shocked when these “hidden” workers show up in our emergency rooms or try to send their kids to school.

For-profit prisons like Corrections Corporation of America and The GEO Group now stand to make a killing on the SB1070 ruling after raking in hundreds of millions detaining illegal immigrants since ’05. Think they have any interest in immigration reform or legalizing guest workers?

From The Huffington Post

Arizona Immigration Law Ruling May Mean Boon For Private Prison Business

By Chris Kirkham

As the Supreme Court upheld a central provision of Arizona’s controversial immigration law on Monday -– a requirement for law enforcement to check the legal status of suspected undocumented immigrants — a powerful corporate lobby may stand to benefit: the private prison industry.

For-profit prison companies including Corrections Corporation of America and the GEO Group Inc. have capitalized on the immigration crackdown over the past decade, now controlling nearly half of the nation’s vast immigrant detention system. Both companies have more than doubled revenues from the business of detaining immigrants since 2005, collecting hundreds of millions of dollars in federal contracts with Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Some immigration reform advocates and lawyers have argued that the upholding of the so-called “show me your papers” portion of Arizona’s SB 1070 may bring more undocumented immigrants into the web of federal immigration enforcement, resulting in increased detentions and deportations.

“This is really the pointy end of the sword of SB 1070,” said Ali Noorani, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, an immigrants’ rights group. “It provides a real boon, a real growth opportunity for the private prison industry in the State of Arizona.”

A Corrections Corporation of America spokesman said that “under longstanding policy, CCA does not and has not ever taken positions on or promoted any sentencing or detention legislation.” A spokesman for the GEO Group did not respond to questions. In the past, CCA officials have stressed that the federal government, not local law enforcement, makes the ultimate decision on which undocumented immigrants should be detained.

Federal officials attempted to assert their authority in Arizona on Monday by rescinding previous agreements with state law enforcement agencies to enforce immigration law at a local level. A senior administration official, who spoke to reporters on condition of anonymity, said Immigration and Customs Enforcement has formally told agents in Arizona to prioritize only the most serious violations referred by local law enforcement. Those include potential undocumented immigrants with a criminal history and repeat border crossers.

“We will not allow a state to set our enforcement priorities,” the senior administration official said.

Yet legal observers argue that the federal government’s talk of prioritizing certain immigrants is at odds with the recent drive of President Barack Obama’s administration to appear tough on immigration enforcement. The administration has deported record numbers of undocumented immigrants, approaching nearly 400,000 each of the last two years, and critics have said the increased Arizona enforcement could bring more opportunities for detention and deportation.

“The main issue here is that there continues to be a focus on deporting a lot of people,” said Nancy Morawetz, a professor at the Immigrant Rights Clinic at New York University’s School of Law. “There’s a sort of pride in the number of people, and a pride in the number of people who happen to come in through an arrest, no matter what the arrest was.”

The potential of future litigation remains likely. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R), who signed Arizona’s immigration law in 2010, noted in a statement Monday: ”Our critics are already preparing new litigation tactics in response to their loss at the Supreme Court, and undoubtedly will allege inequities in the implementation of the law.”

Corrections Corporation of America has strong ties in Arizona, operating three detention centers housing nearly 2,000 undocumented immigrants in the state. Dennis DeConcini, a former Democratic U.S. senator from Arizona, sits on CCA’s board of directors. And several CCA lobbyists in Phoenix have worked for or consulted with Brewer.

Critics have questioned CCA’s ties to Arizona’s law. As written, the law in part mirrors draft model legislation on immigration enforcement developed by the American Legislative Exchange Council, a group of conservative state legislators and business representatives tied to the drafting of Florida’s controversial “Stand Your Ground” law.

Until 2010, a CCA senior director, Laurie Shanblum, sat on the ALEC executive task force for public safety and elections, along with state Sen. Russell Pearce (R), who introduced SB 1070. Parts of the Arizona law, including the section upheld by the Supreme Court, are word-for-word the same as the ALEC public safety task force’s model legislation, according to a review of documents posted online by the Center for Media and Democracy, a left-leaning advocacy group.

Machak, the CCA spokesman, said that “any suggested connection between our company and Arizona’s immigration law is baseless.”

Though model language developed by ALEC is similar to the language in SB 1070, others have taken credit for helping to draft the law, including Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, who worked as an immigration advisor to U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft during the George W. Bush presidency. Kobach has advised other states and towns in developing immigration-related legislation, including Alabama.

GEO Group executives in the past have not disputed that enforcement efforts like Arizona’s immigration law may have positive impacts on their business. In a 2010 GEO Group earnings call after Brewer signed the Arizona law, an analyst asked executives whether the new legislation might affect business.

Wayne Calabrese, then the company’s chief operating officer, said the law “certainly indicates a level of frustration by the public,” according to a transcript of the call. He added: “I can only believe that the opportunities at the federal level are going to continue apace as a result of what’s happening. … That to me at least suggests there’s going to be enhanced opportunities for what we do.”

“Private prison companies are very explicit that they think the growth area for them is federal detention, and that means primarily immigration detention,” said Emily Tucker, director of policy and advocacy for Detention Watch Network, an immigrants’ rights group. “They’re hoping this will mean more contracts for more detention beds.”

Here’s another article–this one much more in-depth–from Kirkham earlier this month:

Private Prisons Profit From Immigration Crackdown, Federal And Local Law Enforcement Partnerships

By Chris Kirkham

PINAL COUNTY, Ariz. — On a flat and desolate stretch of Interstate 10 some 50 miles south of Phoenix, a sheriff’s deputy pulls over a green Chevy Tahoe speeding westbound and carrying three young Hispanic men.

The man behind the wheel produces no driver’s license or registration. The deputy notices $1,000 in cash stuffed in the doorframe — payment, he presumes, for completed passage from Mexico. He radios the sheriff’s immigration enforcement team, summoning agents from the U.S. Border Patrol. Soon, the three men are ushered into the back of a white van with a federal seal.

This routine traffic stop represents the front end of an increasingly lucrative commercial enterprise: the business of incarcerating immigrant detainees, the fastest-growing segment of the American prison population. The three men loaded into the van offer fresh profit opportunities for the nation’s swiftly expanding private prison industry, which has in recent years captured the bulk of this commerce through federal contracts. By filling its cells with undocumented immigrants caught in the web of increased border security, the industry has seen its revenues swell at taxpayer expense.

The convergence of the people on the Interstate on this recent afternoon, as well as the profits that flow from imprisoning immigrants, are in part the result of concerted efforts by the private prison industry to tilt immigration detention policies in its favor, a Huffington Post investigation has shown.

In Washington, the industry’s lobbyists have influenced policy to secure growing numbers of federal inmates in its facilities, while encouraging Congress to increase funding for detention bedspace. Here in this southern Arizona community, private prison companies share the spoils of their business with the local government, effectively giving area law enforcement an incentive to apprehend as many undocumented immigrants as they can.

This confluence of forces has contributed to a doubling of the ranks of immigrant detainees, to about 400,000 a year. Nearly half are now held in private prisons, up from one-fourth a decade ago, according to the Department of Homeland Security. The two largest for-profit prison companies, Corrections Corporation of America and The GEO Group, Inc., have more than doubled their revenues from the immigrant detention business since 2005, according to securities filings.

The companies’ efforts have been directed primarily at influencing decisions by DHS and Congress, which approves final funding for immigration enforcement and detention budgets.

Over the years, CCA has hired a number of former federal insiders to meet with policymakers and handle its contracts. Kim Porter, a former top detention and deportation officer at the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the predecessor to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), is a senior director at the company who manages immigration contracts.

Machak, the CCA spokesman, says the company has been pursuing the same essential business for decades, while delivering value to taxpayers.

“The formation of the Department of Homeland Security in response to 9/11 did not change our practices in any way,” he says. According to Machak, the recent increases in lobbying are due to the “heightened sophistication of the services we provide, which ultimately result in taxpayer savings and increased quality.”

Campaign contributions from both CCA and GEO Group have more than doubled over the past decade, according to a review of campaign finance reports. More than a third of the money CCA has given to congressional candidates over that period has gone to members of the appropriations committees in the House and Senate — the politicians who control the federal purse strings.

The lobbying efforts have been maintained under the Obama administration, though not at the same level as during the Bush administration, when the detention system grew fastest. Funding for new beds has also continued to increase under Obama, and deportations in recent years have reached record numbers, angering immigration reform advocates.

Responding to questions about private prison lobbying, a spokeswoman for ICE, Gillian Christensen, says the agency “routinely evaluates the agency’s detention space needs and awards contracts based on fluctuating detainee populations around the country and the progress of the agency’s overarching detention reform efforts.”

Those efforts include consolidating detention centers in “strategic locations” closer to consulates and pro-bono legal services, she says. As part of that consolidation, ICE is considering two contracts with municipalities near Miami and Chicago — contracts involving CCA — to run new detention centers.

The administration has pledged to focus detention and deportation resources on those with criminal records. During the last two years, the percentage of criminal deportations has increased along with the total, from 48 percent to 54 percent of the nearly 400,000 undocumented immigrants who were deported, according to DHS statistics. But critics complain that stepped-up enforcement has also led to increased apprehensions of “low-priority” undocumented immigrants — those without criminal records.

Christensen says the agency has focused on “smart and effective immigration enforcement which focuses the agency’s limited resources on our enforcement priorities, which include convicted criminal aliens, immigration fugitives, recent border crossers and those who re-enter the country illegally after being removed by ICE or otherwise abuse the nation’s immigration system.”

From 2005 until 2012, the budget for ICE detention operations more than doubled, soaring from $864 million to more than $2 billion in 2012, according to the agency’s budget. So did the capacity of the detention system, which jumped from 18,000 beds in 2003 to 34,000 by last year.