Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA), the ranking Democrat on the House’s Energy and Commerce committee, has sent a letter (PDF) to Indiana’s official lobbyist to inquire why Indiana is lobbying for the Keystone XL Pipeline project.

From the letter:

I have subsequently learned that in the fourth quarter of 2011 you received $50,500 in state taxpayer funds as a lobbyist for the State of Indiana, including for lobbying related to Keystone XL. This seems unusual as the State does not have an obvious interest in seeing the Keystone XL project constructed. The proposed route for the Keystone XL pipeline does not pass through the State of Indiana, nor does it come close to the State’s borders; the nearest the proposed route would approach would be hundreds of miles away in Nebraska and Kansas. Indiana facilities would not have access to the pipeline, nor would it appear that Indiana would particularly benefit from any economic activity associated with the construction of the pipeline.

The Keystone XL Pipeline is a project of a Canadian oil company, TransCanada.

The lobbyist in question is Deborah Hohlt, who frequently represents the state of Indiana. Her latest lobbying disclosure (PDF) shows a wide variety of topics, ranging from the Farm Bill to transportation issues to “Clean coal, carbon capture and storage (CCS), biofuels tax extenders, climate change, Keystone XL Pipeline”.

Deborah Hohlt is a former Deputy Chief of Staff for the Republican National Committee. She worked in public affairs for the Department of Health and Human Services, before swinging through the revolving door and working for Blue Cross/Blue Shield and Eli Lilly. (Hohlt was Director of Public Affairs at Eli Lilly from 1995-2001, where current Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels was Senior VP of Corporate Strategy from 1997-2001, and President of North American Operations from 11993-1997.)

Deborah Hohlt is the wife of Richard Hohlt, the powerful lobbyist and GOP fundraiser. During the trial of Scooter Libby, Robert Novak disclosed that he had revealed the identity of then-covert CIA officer Valerie Plame to Richard Hohlt before the infamous column hit the papers. Richard Hohlt confirmed to Newsweek that he had faxed a copy of the article to Karl Rove before it was published.

A tip of the hat to Marueen Groppe for tweeting about this news bit today.

Waxman has asked Indiana's lobbyist for a meeting "to learn about Indiana's interest."

February 2, 2012 11:56 am via webReplyRetweetFavorite

@mgroppe

Maureen Groppe

UPDATE: According to TransCanada’s own filings, the pipeline would increase the cost of oil across the Midwest.

UPDATE 2: Couldn’t find this link earlier, but here’s a blog post from January 26 by Josh Israel and Brad Johnson at Think Progress, which was the first I saw to note the lobbying disclosure.

[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.

Yesterday, I wrote about the various outside groups – at least 3 of which are “headquartered” out of PO boxes at retail shops around the country – who are spending money by the thousands in an effort to influence elections here in Indiana.

These groups are targeting a few specific races here in Indiana, and – unsurprisingly – are spending their money on the handful of competitive races for national office.

Let’s start with my home Congressional district, Indiana’s 9th. It’s one of only two races in Indiana where outside money has topped the $1 million dollar mark so far this cycle, according to the Sunlight Foundation’s excellent tracking tools. As the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette’s Sylvia Smith reported last week, the outside spending has gone overwhelmingly in one direction. When she wrote her piece, the trend was clear:

Money is also pouring into the race between Rep. Baron Hill, D-9th, and Republican Todd Young in the southeastern corner of the state. Groups trying to defeat Hill have spent $447,863; a union defending him has spent $161,921.

Using the most recent data, the numbers look like this:

The biggest spender in the 9th has been the National Republican Congressional Committee, pumping in more than $437,000 to oppose Baron Hill. But the New Prosperity Foundation just followed their $50,000 ad buy last week with another $80,000 in TV advertising opposing Hill. That Chicago-based group has purchased more airtime in the past week than the Young campaign has spent on TV & radio advertising since the start of his campaign ($117,578).

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee have spent just over $311,000, most of it in a $207,000 media buy today, to oppose GOP “Young Gun” candidate, Todd Young. They are the only outside group opposing Young, although a union did buy about $162,000 of ad time in support of Rep. Hill’s re-election campaign in September of 2009.

The most expensive race in the state, though, is up north in Indiana’s 2nd District. Incumbent Blue Dog Democrat Joe Donnelly has been caught in a pricey campaign with state Representative Jackie Walorski. Here are the numbers:

The NRCC has spent more than $400,000 opposing Joe Donnelly, a total nearly matched by the 60 Plus Association’s $393,000. The 60 Plus Association, a group I omitted from my post yesterday, is a conservative organization funded by the nation’s largest pharmaceutical firms. In addition, the New Prosperity Foundation has kicked in $130,000, and the anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony List has spent another $134,500 to try and unseat Donnelly.

On the other side, Donnelly has gotten a boost from more than $300,000 – most spent in the last week – by the National Association of Realtors. The DCCC has spent just over $254,000 in the 2nd District this cycle, most of which was represented by a $156,000 ad buy today. Donnelly’s numbers are somewhat inflated by a union ad buy in support of him last November.

In the race for the open seat in Indiana’s 8th District, the disparity is even greater:

The NRCC has spent just over $181,000 on media and surveys opposing state Representative Trent Van Haaften, while the Americans for Job Security has spent more than $355,000 out of their PO box headquarters trying to influence “Indianans” in the race. The DCCC announced today that is was cancelling an ad buy in the 8th District.

In the Indiana Senate race between Representative Brad Ellsworth and former Senator-turned-lobbyist Dan Coats, the numbers are not huge, but staggeringly unilateral:

More than 76% of all the outside money spent in this race has been in support of Washington, DC North Carolina mega-lobbyist Dan Coats, but that number doesn’t tell the whole truth. If you omit the $90,000 that a union spent supporting Ellsworth last November – when he was still a House candidate – it’s entirely a one-sided matchup.

The biggest spender in this race, by far, is the US Chamber of Commerce, who devoted $250,000 to ads opposing Brad Ellsworth. That media buy represents 74% of the total outside expenditures in this race since both candidates were decided.

I’ll wrap up with a look at some of the other Indiana races and how these numbers look in the context of previous races tomorrow.

Over the past several months, a nonprofit organization has pumped hundreds of thousands of dollars into Indiana’s 8th District Congressional race.

According to reports filed with the Federal Election Commission, Americans for Job Security has spent more than $355,000 since August for TV ads, radio spots, and direct mail pieces opposing Trent Van Haaften. Here’s an example of their work:

Americans for Jobs Security claims to be a nonprofit, and even has a section of its website dedicated to Indiana. But while the logo reads “Hoosiers for Job Security”, the copy on the website reads differently:

Have you ever heard anyone who’s actually from Indiana refer to residents here as “Indianans?” I sure haven’t. But it doesn’t surprise me that a group like Americans for Job Security, headquartered at a PO box at a UPS store in Virginia, can’t even get their basic astroturfing vocabulary straight.

Americans for Job Security was started in 1997 with million-dollar gifts from the American Insurance Association and the American Forest and Paper Association. It’s technically organized as a trade group, and is not required to disclose its donors – it prefers to disguise its fundraising as membership dues. And while the group’s public address is that UPS store drop box, Americans for Job Security actually operates out of the same Republican shop as Crossroads Media, the team behind Karl Rove’s billionaire-funded “shadow GOP”, American Crossroads.

Last month, Eric Bradner wrote a story on the initial ad buy against Van Haaften in the Evansville Courier Press:

The ads, with a buy totaling $5 million behind them, are funded by Americans for Job Security and another Republican-allied group, The 60 Plus Association.

Van Haaften’s spokesman, Zach Knowling, called Americans for Job Security a "shadowy special interest group with big corporate backing."

"This group is spending big to elect Larry Bucshon, who has pledged in writing to support the same corporate tax loopholes that Whirlpool used to ship 1,100 jobs from Evansville to Mexico this summer," Knowling said.

And Americans for Job Security isn’t the only outside group pouring money into the Hoosier state in an effort to influence the 2010 elections.

The American Future Fund has spent more than a quarter of a million dollars trying to unseat Democratic Representative Baron Hill in Indiana’s 9th District. The AFF, which claims it was “formed to provide Americans with a conservative and free market viewpoint”, is organized as a 501(c)4 nonprofit and is headquartered out of a PO box at a UPS store in Iowa. Like other 501(c)4 groups, they do not have to disclose their donors. The AFF might be best known for hiring the producers of the racist “Willie Horton” ads to try and tie a Democratic Congressman in Iowa to plans to build a mosque “at Ground Zero”.

AUL Action, a DC-based arm of the anti-abortion group Americans United for Life, has spent more than $17,000 on radio ads against Baron Hill. But that’s a small expenditure next to the New Prosperity Foundation’s $50,000 radio buy in the 9th District. The New Prosperity Foundation is a Chicago-based organization formed by big-dollar fundraisers for former President Bush that is suddenly pushing into more races outside of Illinois.

Another shadowy group, billing itself as the Coalition to Protect Seniors, has spent thousands on TV ads opposing Baron Hill and Democratic Senate candidate Brad Ellsworth. The “Coalition” was only incorporated on June 30, 2010, and appears to be headquartered out of a PO box at a Delaware Mail Boxes, Etc. store.

In August, the anti-abortion Susan B. Anthony List, spent more than $20,000 on its bus tour opposing Baron Hill, Brad Ellsworth, and 2nd District Congressman Joe Donnelly – all pro-life Democrats.

Senator Max Baucus (D-MT), head of the Senate Finance Committee, has asked the IRS to look into whether these groups are abusing their nonprofit status. His letter specifically mentions Americans for Job Security, but his request would also cover other “nonprofits” that seem to have political campaign activity as their sole reason for existence.

The sad part is, these are just a handful of the independent expenditures here in Indiana since August. I haven’t included any of the thousands of dollars being spent by the national Republican committees, or looked back to see how much these groups and others spent earlier in the year.

Tomorrow, I’ll break down expenditures by candidate and show precisely which Indiana elections are the targets of these outside groups.

Two of my favorite political writers are having a bit of a showdown today, and I just thought I’d throw in my two cents.

Over at The American Prospect, Jamelle Bouie wrote a thoughtful critique of Markos Moulitsas’ new book, American Taliban. Digby responded, arguing with Bouie’s review more than defending Markos’ book.

I see two elements to Bouie’s critique: there’s the polemical nature of the book itself, and then there’s an argument about the outcome and effectiveness of that approach.

Let’s start with the more interesting argument here, that the GOP’s extremist and negative tendencies have actually been ineffective:

Conservatives haven’t actually gained from their willingness to bend and misrepresent the truth. For starters, Republicans are still deeply unpopular; according to a recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, only 24 percent of Americans gave the GOP a positive rating, a historic low. At best, with their constant attacks on “socialism” and “tyranny,” conservatives are responding to a gross caricature of liberalism; after years of taking down liberal straw men, conservatives can neither respond to actual liberals nor offer the public anything other than decades-old dogma. Indeed, their likely electoral gains notwithstanding, movement conservatives are still incapable of making an affirmative case for their governing philosophy. Their “new ideas” are anything but, and to most informed observers, it’s clear that “no” is the only functioning weapon in the Republican Party’s paltry arsenal. Put another way, there’s a reason why the movement’s leading voices are quasi-religious charlatans, rent-seeking celebrities, and failed ex-governors.

Digby’s response is the same as my initial response – is Bouie actually “living in the same political world” as the rest of us? But as I re-read Bouie’s argument and thought about it, I think it deserves much more credit than Digby gives it. After all, like Digby, I’ve linked to Paul Krugman’s depressing takes on the economic environment. I think there’s merit to the argument that the administration’s inattentiveness and/or unwillingness to appreciate the depths of the unemployment crisis has doomed the Democratic party’s prospects in this November’s midterm election. But you can’t say that the bad economy is driving the political winds of the midterm election AND credit a Republican party that you think is in disarray.

Here’s what Digby wrote:

This is a mind-boggling assertion, really, especially considering the fact that they are on the verge of making an epic comeback even in the face of total institutional disarray and a takeover of the GOP by the lunatic fringe. And it’s purely on their willingness, indeed eagerness, to go for the jugular.

Frankly, no, it’s not mind-boggling.

Crediting this economy to GOP policies is an argument I happen to buy, but Digby seems to be instead crediting this to conservative aggression. Maybe there is a link, and maybe conservative aggression is part of the reasons Dems have been unwilling or unable to make a convincing case to voters. But it was Democratic Senators elevating centrist posturing over sound policy that watered down the stimulus – not the GOP. It was Democratic opposition that watered down credit card reform. It was Democratic opposition that watered down Wall Street reform. It was Democratic Senators who were unwilling to overcome a filibuster of extending unemployment insurance. But it certainly was not a preference for the GOP’s proposed alternative policy solutions that drove those decisions.

If you buy that the economy and joblessness is driving the GOP’s comeback, then you can give some credit to their lock-step opposition to any policy choices that would alleviate suffering. But that’s exactly what Bouie is arguing – that NO is their “only functioning weapon.”  Bouie carefully chose his words here, saying that Republicans “haven’t actually gained” from this situation. I don’t buy that this is a zero-sum equation here. While it’s true that the GOP has managed to hurt the Democrats with this strategy, it’s hard to see where this has directly benefited the conservatives. They’ve driven moderate Republicans from the party and made races that should have been slam-dunks into tight contests.

The idea of GOP disarray has been wildly overstated, as we can see by their impressive discipline in maintaining a negative bloc of votes. That isn’t really evidence of “institutional disarray”, but rather evidence that the RNC is not their primary source of leadership.

Then, there’s Bouie’s less-impressive arguments about the polemical nature of the book:

Like Liberal Fascism, American Taliban is another entry in the tired genre of “my political opponents are monsters.” Indeed, Moulitsas begins the book with the Goldbergian declaration that “in their tactics and on the issues, our homegrown American Taliban are almost indistinguishable from the Afghan Taliban.” And he fills the remaining 200-plus pages with similar accusations. In the chapter on power, Moulitsas writes that “the American Taliban seek a tyranny of the believers in which the popular will, the laws of the land, and all of secular society are surrendered to their clerics and ideologues.” Which is, of course, why these American Taliban participate in the democratic system and hew to the outcomes of elections. Later in the chapter, Moulitsas argues that the right-wing hates democracy — they “openly dream of their own regressive brand of religious dictatorship” — loves war, fears sex, and openly despises women and gays. In the chapter on “war,” Moulitsas calls Rep. Michelle Bachmann of Minnesota a “high priestess of the American Taliban” — a veritable Mullah Omar, it seems! — and in the final chapter on “truth,” Moulitsas concludes by noting the foundational “kinship” between the two Talibans.

I think Bouie overstates his case here. Digby responds:

Evidently, the use of hyperbole to make the ironic point that they have the same worldview as their proclaimed mortal enemies is verboten because it isn’t literally true. But polemics often make use of such literary devices to make a larger observation, so I’m not sure that Moulitsas is trying to convince people that the American Far Right is secretly cutting women’s noses off but rather that in the context of our society, they are the nose cutters. (And frankly, I think it’s fairly obvious if they could enforce their religious doctrine and political ideology on all of us, they would. No nose-cutting, so that’s good. They’ll just engage in old fashioned American slut-shaming, which I grant is an improvement over physical disfiguration but the deeper meaning of the act is exactly the same.)

Like Digby, I’m still waiting to get a copy of the book, so I can’t go into much detail here. But I think she’s right here – differences of degree aside, hyperbole is an effective literary device when used properly. Unless I’ve misread his review or missed something key about Markos’ book, I think Bouie is wrong to focus on a few GOP political figures instead of the parallels between the Christian dominionist movement (and their more mainstream cousins in the GOP, like Phyllis Schlafly) and the Islamic dominionists. There’s been an undeniable mainstreaming of the far-right elements over the past few years, as Dave Neiwert and others have documented.

And, as Digby pointed out, Bouie’s claim that Ann Coulter “was fired from National Review (an organ of the American Taliban)” for her comment about invading other countries and converting them to Christianity either completely misremembers or mischaracterizes the whole situation.

Ann Coulter was fired for going on TV and slagging National Review Online (she didn’t work for the magazine) for paying peanuts and because they wanted to edit her column. They made a big point about saying they fired her for her unprofessional conduct, not her writing. And she was hired afterward by USA Today (where she was also eventually fired and replaced by Jonah Goldberg.)She still has a nationally syndicated column and her work appears on Townhall, World Net Daily and Human Events among others. She sold many thousands of hate-filled anti-liberal books with titles like Slander and Treason and Godless, appeared all over the country to tumultuous, adoring crowds and landed on the cover of Time magazine — all after she made those statements. Apparently the National Review’s withdrawal of its imprimatur didn’t impress her audience very much. If that’s what constitutes a glaring contradiction in the book, then I’m afraid it isn’t Moulitsas who has failed to do his homework.

That factual mistake aside, Bouie’s argument is much more nuanced and creative than the usual high-minded, above the fray nonsense that Markos has written extensively about, and his criticism deserves an honest hearing.