Brian Kanowsky

[Potential trigger warning for rape, incest, pedophilia]

Let me say, for the record, that I don’t actually believe any Republicans are pro-rape.

Let me repeat that: I don’t believe any Republicans are pro-rape.

But there’s been another rash of GOPers making the lazy, illogical argument that we can’t allow our lesbian, gay, and transgender brothers and sisters to have the same full and equal right to marriage as the rest of us because – if we did – we would then have to allow incest and bestiality and pedophilia.

South Carolina Republican Trey Gowdy is just the latest case in point, as flagged by the inimitable Pam Spaulding.

He joins the long line of other Republicans like Mike Huckabee,  J.D. Hayworth, Rick Santorum and conservative talk show hosts Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly, Michael Savage, and Pat Robertson who have made the same argument. Media Matters even put together a compilation of conservatives repeating this nonsense like a broken record:

This isn’t just your usual slippery slope argument, though – there’s a much more insidious element to this line of thought. It’s the idea that consent is irrelevant. The obvious difference between two adults entering into a marriage – let alone a sexual relationship – and any of those other things is that both parties can (and do) consent.

We make pedophilia a crime because children can’t consent to sex. We make bestiality a crime because the animal can’t give consent. It’s why we make incest a crime, to the limited degree we do – the idea of consent becomes very problematic when family authority is involved. And, of course, rape is a crime because of the absence of consent.

So when a conservative or Republican makes the argument that consensual relationships are of a kind with incest, bestiality, and pedophilia, they are essentially making the argument that consent doesn’t matter. And if consent is irrelevant, then why are we prosecuting rapists?

My point here isn’t to demonize any Republicans, but to point out the absurdity of their arguments against marriage equality. Are they really willing to legalize rape in order to continue discriminating against our LGBT brothers and sisters? I don’t think so.

Then again, with Republicans showing an increasing willingness to shut down health services for women and make it harder for poor children to get food just for the appearance of being tough on abortion – even when it doesn’t stop a single abortion from taking place – maybe I’m being too optimistic.

Previously, I posted a district-by-district comparison showing that, compared to previous elections, we’re seeing a much larger amount of money being spent by groups that do not disclose their donors. I relied on several sources of information for this post, but especially liked the Sunlight Foundation Reporting Group’s “Follow the Unlimited Money” site.

Now, the folks have Sunlight have done their own analysis, and confirmed that spending patterns in Indiana are not an anomaly. Paul Blumenthal writes, “This is a dramatic change from the 2006 midterms (as of October 19, 2006) when party committees accounted for eighty-two percent of all outside spending on independent expenditures and non-party aligned committees accounted for eighteen percent.” Or, to put it another way:

Source: Sunlight Foundation blog 

As of October 25, the Sunlight Foundation found that:

Outside groups have disclosed spending some $347 million, of which $302 million directly advocates defeat or election of a federal candidate. Biggest chunk of that latter portion: Outside, non-party groups (including Super PACs and non-profits) opposing Democratic candidates ($73.5 million) followed by Democratic Party committees opposing Republican candidates ($66.4 million).

In the press around the state, coverage of this issue has been mixed. I was astonished to see this piece by Gannett’s Maureen Groppe, claiming, “The biggest players are the national parties.” While that is technically true, it actually obscures a basic trend. Other journalists around the state have done a better job of writing about outside money – on the Bloomington Herald Times’ Government Tracker blog, Chris Fyall provides context for the large expenditures from the DCCC and SEIU, pointing out that GOP challenger Todd Young’s backers have spent much more on the race than groups supporting Hill. And the Louisville Courier Journal’s Lesley Stedman Weidenbener, one of the most consistently excellent state politics reporters, wrote a strong piece called “Outside groups spending more to oust Rep. Baron Hill than to reelect him.”

I’d like to revisit the numbers from my earlier post with newer information as the campaigns roll into the final days. The contest between Baron Hill and Todd Young has now drawn more than $3.3 million in outside spending, and is one of the 25 most expensive House races in the country. In the last week, we’ve seen big expenditures from both parties, the SEIU, and a small handful of conservative-aligned groups.

As we’ve neared Election Day, independent expenditures by the party committees has increased, while the nonparty outside groups have slowed their spending. But we have seen new spending by conservative groups like Freedom Works and former New York Governor George Pataki’s anti-health reform Revere America. And, echoing trends throughout the state, the Indiana Chamber of Commerce has gotten involved on behalf of Todd Young. Ostensibly anti-abortion groups like the Family Research Council, National Right to Life, Susan B. Anthony List, and Americans United for Life have stepped up their spending opposing the pro-life Baron Hill.

While the party committees have traded large expenditures in the 9th over the last week or so, making them the biggest spenders in this race, the DCCC and NRCC have still combined for less than 2/3 of total spending in this race. Outside groups have spent nearly $1 million since January, and more if you include SEIU’s ads in support of Hill in 2009. That marks a major shift for a race that saw about 98% of 2006 expenditures from party committees, and at least 88% of expenditures in 2008 from the party committees.

The biggest spenders opposing Baron Hill are the NRCC ($851,000), the American Future Fund ($287,000), and the New Prosperity Foundation ($281,500). The only spenders opposing Todd Young are the DCCC ($1.37 million) and SEIU ($178,000). In addition, MoveOn has spent just over $2,000 supporting Baron Hill after its members voted to endorse the conservative Blue Dog Democrat. The Democratic-allied Citizens for Strength and Security, a 527 group that lists the same law office address as several other Democratic groups, has spent about $69,000 on “electioneering communications,” but I haven’t seen their ads and can’t find any of their Indiana ads online.

Unlike the conservative groups, though, the SEIU offers far more disclosure of its donors and operations:

While they aren’t required by the FEC or IRS to disclose donors, a separate piece of federal law, the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, requires that unions disclose all sources of income that adds up to more than $5,000, a requirement overseen by the Department of Labor. As a result, unions disclose more than many political groups about their internal operations, and certainly more than than do 501(c)(4) nonprofits like Crossroads GPS or 501(c)(6) groups like the Chamber.

As Jon Youngdahl, political director for the union, wrote in the Washington Post: “Anyone who wants to know where SEIU political dollars come from can go on the Internet and check out the detailed public reports all unions and their political action committees are required to file with the Federal Election Commission and the U.S. Labor Department.” SIEU has spent about $10.5 million on independent expenditures in 2010.

Similarly, MoveOn formally closed their 527 arm in the 2008 campaign, and hadn’t used it since the 2004 race. They file the same disclosure as any other PAC. MoveOn has spent less than $1 million on independent expenditures in 2010. The Sierra Club, who doesn’t disclose its donors, isn’t exactly a secret or new organization. They’ve spent less than $1.5 million total in 2010.

Up in Indiana’s 2nd District, the money just keep pouring in, now totaling more than $3.5 million. This race is not only the most expensive race in the state, it’s also ranked as the 18th most expensive House race in the country.

Some of the players here are the same as the ones in the 9th District. The Indiana Chamber has spent $43,000 in support of the GOP challenger, state representative Jackie Walorski. And the same (ostensibly) anti-abortion groups are also targeting the pro-life incumbent Congressman, Joe Donnelly. Other spenders have included Freedom Works and Americans for Tax Reform.

As the table above shows, while the DCCC and NRCC are nominally the biggest spenders, the party committees have combined for less than 38% of total expenditures in this race. Through their various arms, the National Association of Realtors (supporting Donnelly) and American Crossroads (opposing Donnelly) have combined for nearly a million dollars in outside spending. And that still doesn’t account for the 60 Plus Association ($397,000), the American Action Network ($319,000), the New Prosperity Foundation ($148,000), Susan B. Anthony List ($153,500), or the US Chamber of Commerce ($39,000) – all spent in opposition to Donnelly.

This competitive race also shows a marked difference from past elections. In the 2006 campaign, this District saw only 76% of independent expenditures coming from party committees, less than the national average. This year, we’ve seen three different outside groups each spending a comparable amount to the total nonparty expenditures from 2006.

This is the 5th entry in a series of posts looking at independent expenditures in Indiana elections. For previous entries, see:

• Who’s Buying Hoosier Elections – a look at the outside groups spending money in Indiana’s Congressional elections
• Which Hoosier Elections Are Being Bought – a race-by-race breakdown showing where the money is going, who it’s supporting, and who it’s opposing
• Buying Hoosier Elections, Then and Now – a district-by-district comparison of outside group independent expenditures from 2006-2010
• Buying Hoosier Elections With Lies – a look at the misinformation being spread by the untraceable independent expenditures

Greg Sargent had a great post a week or so ago, hitting on the fact that all the untraceable outside money pouring into our elections isn’t only problematic on its own – it’s also that it is buying lie after lie:

And no one is talking about what’s in the ads themselves. No one is talking about how these ads are filled with multiple distortions and debunked falsehoods. In other words, no one is talking about what it is the voters themselves are seeing in these ads on an hourly basis. The discussion is largely a Beltway process argument about matters such as whether attack ads are effective and whether the Dem criticism of the secret cash is working politically for them.

None of this discussion does anything to undercut or challenge what the Chamber and Rove’s groups are actually up to here: They are flooding airwaves across the country with a massive, secret-donor-funded campaign that’s designed to tip control of Congress with a campaign of misinformation, distortions and falsehoods that have been widely debunked by independent fact checkers but nonetheless have attracted little to no notice.

Let’s look at some of the groups pouring money into Indiana races. Unfortunately, sites like Politifact and FactCheck.org haven’t specifically investigated most of the ads running in Indiana, but because similar versions of these ads are running in many districts across the country we can extrapolate some of these fact checks.

The 60 Plus Association has spent more than $5.8 million in this election, including more than $397,000 against Joe Donnelly in Indiana’s 2nd District. Like most of these outside groups, 60 Plus does not disclose its donors, but multiple reports have stated that their initial funding came from the nation’s largest pharmaceutical companies. The only 60 Plus ad checked by the nonpartisan PolitiFact – in fact, one of the same cookie-cutter ads they ran against Donnelly – registered a “Barely True” rating. FactCheck.org looked at the same ad, and called it a “Misleading Onslaught by 60 Plus.”

Americans for Job Security has spent more $7.8 million total from undisclosed donors, including $355,000 in Indiana’s 8th District, and . The highest rating they’ve managed from PolitiFact is a “Half True,” but that was an ad in Colorado. The similar ad they ran against Trent Van Haaften included the same line about a “job-killing energy taxes",” which PolitiFact dismisses, writing: “calling it a "energy tax" is not an accurate way to describe the measure.” There’s also the problem that the ad is 100% speculative – it tries to tie Van Haaften to Congressional votes, when Van Haaften has never served in Congress. He did not vote for any cap & trade bill, and in fact has said that he opposes that plan.

Karl Rove’s billionaire-funded American Crossroads and its related groups have spent more than $37 million in 2010, including more than $400,000 spent opposing Joe Donnelly in the 2nd District. The Washington Post’s Greg Sargent listed just a handful of the misleading or untrue ads American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS were running in Senate campaigns across the country. Factcheck.org dedicated a lengthy piece to a “blizzard” of ads from Crossroads, writing that their ads “contain a number of misleading and false claims.”

The US Chamber of Commerce has spent nearly $32 million in independent expenditures this year, including $250,000 into the Senate campaign between mega-lobbyist Dan Coats and Rep. Brad Ellsworth. The Chamber is also guilty of an aversion to the truth. In fact, two Pittsburgh-area TV stations went as far as pulling a Chamber ad off the air because it contained unsupported lies about Senate candidate Joe Sestak. Greg Sargent also looked at a number of Chamber ads running against House candidates across the country, and found that those ads “contain many claims that are demonstrable distortions or have been repeatedly debunked as false by independent fact-checkers.”

Former Senator Norm Coleman’s American Action Network is a more recent entry into Indiana’s election this fall. They’ve spent about $17.5 million total this year, including $319,000 opposing Joe Donnelly in Indiana’s 2nd District. The only AAN ad evaluated by PolitiFact earned their “Pants on Fire” rating for suggesting that Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-CO) voted on a bill that never actually came up in the House. FactCheck.org mentioned that AAN was one of the groups promoting the “false statement that ‘jail time’ would be the punishment for not having insurance.” That ad was pulled by a Denver TV station after they determined the ad was false. American Action Network is a 501(c)(4) “action tank”, and does not disclose its donors.

Of course, the lies aren’t just coming from these shadowy groups. Dan Coats, a heavy favorite in the Senate race, is running his own ad that earned a “Pants On Fire” rating from PolitiFact. Coats’ ad claims that, thanks to Brad Ellsworth, senior citizens will be “forced” into Barack Obama’s healthcare plan. As PolitiFact wrote:

And if seniors are being forced into regular Medicare, a government-run health care program, it’s one they’ve collectively been forced into for 45 years. Ellsworth’s vote did nothing to change that. The ad is capitalizing on confusion about the nature of the Medicare program and making a ridiculous claim. Pants on Fire!

And in the 9th District, Fox 59 summed up the National Republican Congressional Committee’s ad in one word: baloney. This late in the campaign, I would probably be tempted use a less PG-rated term myself, but their analysis gets the point across:

Our rating of this ad aimed at Rep. Baron Hill and the others is baloney!

On Monday, the New York Times published an article addressing these same charges. Denise Bode, president and CEO of the American Wind Energy Association, was quoted, saying, "this program is a great example of ‘insourcing’ jobs to the United States by leveraging both foreign and domestic investment. It is the opposite of outsourcing."

Their organization is asking Republicans to pull the ads they say give the false impression that wind energy stimulus funds went to China.

When Hoosiers go to the polls on Tuesday, we can only hope they’re casting an informed ballot in spite of the lies saturating our airwaves.

This is the 4th entry in a series of posts looking at independent expenditures in Indiana elections. For previous entries, see:

• Who’s Buying Hoosier Elections – a look at the outside groups spending money in Indiana’s Congressional elections
• Which Hoosier Elections Are Being Bought – a race-by-race breakdown showing where the money is going, who it’s supporting, and who it’s opposing
• Buying Hoosier Elections, Then and Now – a district-by-district comparison of outside group independent expenditures from 2006-2010

The first story I saw in this morning’s paper wasn’t about elections, or crime, or even the weather. It was this:

But after this year, don’t expect the program to be called by its widely recognized moniker “Shop with a Cop.”

Members of the Fraternal Order of Police Don Owens Memorial Lodge 88 received word that the catchy phrase for their charitable event has been trademarked, explained local lodge vice president and Bloomington police Detective Marty Deckard.

And use of that trademarked name comes with a cost. Deckard said the FOP received a letter from the man who trademarked “Shop with a Cop,” asking for $200 for use of the name each year. That cost is based on a community’s population, Deckard said.

Source: HeraldTimesOnline.com [sub req’d]

I vaguely remembered a similarly story coming out of Evansville a few years ago, and sure enough, here’s the same charitable program in southern Indiana changing its name due to a copyright claim:

For nearly a decade, members of the Vanderburgh County Sheriff’s Department have raised money to take underprivileged children out Christmas shopping, picking out toys, clothes and presents for families that otherwise might have to forgo the holiday altogether.

[…] Just don’t call it “Shop with A Cop.”

That’s the name the event went by for nine years, but it’s been changed to “Shop with A Sheriff” after organizers learned an Ohio company holds a trademark on the title.

The company that holds the copyright is CJW, Inc., a small, private telemarketing company based in Ohio. The owner of CJW, Inc., is Edward Wiza.

Before starting CJW, Mr. Wiza was General Manager and Vice President for JAK Productions, the fundraising company at the center of the bankruptcy of the Indiana Troopers Association and the current problems with fundraising for the Indiana State Fraternal Order of Police. JAK Productions was also fined $300,000 by the Federal Trade Commission for violating telemarketing laws. Mr. Wiza was sued by JAK Productions for attempting to poach clients and taking confidential information with him when he left the firm in 1991.

According to court documents, Ed Wiza terminated his employment with JAK Productions on November 25, 1991. That is the same date CJW, Inc. claims as the “first use” in its trademark filings for “Shop With A Cop.” The trademark was officially filed on November 2, 1995, and finally registered on December 10, 1996.

It appears that the local FOP’s program predates CJW’s first use of the term, but it’s unclear whether the moniker started the same time as the program. According to the FOP Lodge 88 website, “Since 1990 during the month of December, FOP 88 has provided a joyful holiday for underprivileged children in the Monroe county [sic] area who, without this program, may not experience one.”

Ed Wiza defended his demand for money from the local FOP to the Herald Times:

Wiza said trademarking names and licensing the use of names strengthens organizations, because “people identify with the program, by using a name that’s well known and understood, they can save a lot of money in the advertising and fundraising process.”

[…]

“We live in the United States of America; you’ve got to pay to play,” Wiza said. “If you don’t make a profit, you can’t pay your taxes.”

As the Courier Press article noted in 2008, both “Shop With A Sheriff” and “Shop With A Deputy Sheriff” have been trademarked in the past. The Deputy variation was trademarked by the nonprofit San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association Foundation, while the Sheriff variation was copyrighted by a promotions company in Tuscon, Arizona. Neither trademark appears to be active now.

If you’re interested in helping FOP 88’s “Shop With A Cop” program, you can donate online with PayPal here or drop off a check at any local police station.

UPDATE: Someone pointed me to an undated memo I originally saw referenced in a 2002 FOP newsletter. The memo (PDF link), citing a 2002 agreement between the FOP’s Grand Lodge and CJW, Inc.,  states that, “There is no fee for using the phrase ["Shop With A Cop"], so long as the lodge in question does not use a professional fund raising company.” The original Herald Times story does not mention any professional fundraising companies contracted by Lodge 88 here in Monroe County. So if this agreement is still in effect, and Lodge 88 has not hired an outside professional fundraising company, it would seem that CJW, Inc., is in violation of its own agreement. Which would make this story even more egregious. I’ll attempt to contact Mr. Wiza and the FOP Grand Lodge for clarification.