The influence of right-wing money into judicial elections is a growing problem. Not only have the 1% decided they want to own our politicians, they want to own our judges, too. And because judicial elections mostly fly under the radar, they seem to be getting away with it:

The Club for Growth, a right-wing group that supports tax cuts for the rich, privatizing Social Security and writing Tea Party ideology into the Constitution, spent $300,000 to keep a key ally of anti-union Gov. Scott Walker (R-WI) on the Wisconsin Supreme Court — and that was just in the primary:

Now, another member of the court’s 4-3 right-wing majority, Justice Patience “Pat” Roggensack, is up for re-election.Roggensack is being aided by the same outside groups that aided Walker in advancing some of his most controversial proposals. The far-right independent expenditure group Wisconsin Club for Growth spent an eye-popping $300,000 on television ads supporting Roggensack during the primary. Club for Growth was responsible for more than 75% of the nearly $400,000 in TV spending in the primary race, and more than 80% of the total ad spots, according to TNS Media Intelligence/CMAG estimates released by the Brennan Center for Justice and Justice at Stake.

In addition, Roggensack is being handed big checks by some of the same wealthy donors that gave to Governor Walker in his recall campaign, such as Beloit billionaire Diane Hendricks and David Uihlein, Jr., as well as a variety of PACs and local Republican Party chapters.

Her opponent, Marquette Law Professor Edward Fallone, has been endorsed by a host of progressive organizations, but lags well behind in fundraising. If Fallone took the majority, the court could do a virtual 180 on some of the state’s most contentious issues. (Editor's note: You can contribute here.)

It’s not surprising that the Club and other well-moneyed conservatives are willing to spend big to keep Roggensack on the court. Roggensack was part of the 4-3 majority that upheld a law pushed by Walker to undermine public sector unions. She also cast the key vote to reject an ethics rule that would have prevented justices from hearing cases involving their major campaign donors.

Instead, Roggensack backed a rule written by corporate lobbyists.

Since it's New Year's Eve, I thought we should honor those billionaires who had so much money they knew they could afford to step up and toss it away on wingnuts and Mitt Romney.

To their credit, these are the billionaires who put a lot of money up under the Klieg lights, rather than snuffling around the dark money labyrinth, though it is entirely possible they tossed at least as much out on the dark money trail as they did in the light.

To arrive at these numbers, I went through the top 50 Federal SuperPACs, downloaded the data, and captured anyone who gave $100,000 or more to right wing SuperPACs, whether for the primary or general election. These numbers would include only giving to federally disclosed SuperPACs, and not 501(c)(4) organizations or state contributions to specific candidates. While I'm certain we would discover many more dollars flowing through into state elections, that's a job that would take more hands than I have.

You can see the entire list here, but I'll list the top ten for your enjoyment. Some names you will know; others you won't. A couple came as a surprise to me.

1. $43,325,000: Sheldon Adelson. Yes, our favorite Las Vegas billionaire wins the prize for the most generous buyouts in federal politics from primary through the general election. His name appeared at the top of nearly every conservative SuperPAC I reviewed. He was at every damn table in the election. What a guy.
2. $41,825,000: Dr. Miriam Adelson. Sliding in just a couple of million under Sheldon, Mrs. Adelson was equally generous and to the same groups, for the most part. The Adelson daughters also did their part with a million or so each, but since we're looking on a per person, rather than per family basis, the Adelsons capture the Number One and Two spots on the hit parade.
3. $29,200,000: Harold Simmons and Contran. Some checks came from Contran; others from Simmons. Since Simmons is the guy controlling Contran, he got credit for their contributions and his own, bringing him into the number three position. Simmons, you may recall, spent $4 million for the SwiftBoat operation against John Kerry in 2004. Back then, we thought that was an obscene amount of money. Now he doesn't even get the number one or two spot for nearly $30 million. Simmons wins the top Texas donor slot, though he's not the only Texan in our Top Ten.

   Annette Simmons kicked in $1.2 million to Rick Santorum, but doesn't make the top ten list for that, just a mere mention next to her husband's $29.2 million.

4. $22,100,000: Bob Perry. Coming in fourth is our other favorite Texan, Bob Perry, builder, swiftboater and Texas billionaire, who would have you believe he's just a good ole boy who grew up and started building houses one day. Now Bob Perry is well known for his giving largesse to the Republican Governors' Association and state races, too. It's possible that if we were to tally those in, he'd lead the pack. But for this contest, he comes in at number 4.
5. $13,090,000: J. Joe Ricketts. Yes, our favorite bigot, Romney pal, and TD Ameritrade founder takes the number 5 slot. Ricketts, you may recall, thought it would be really cool to revive the Reverend Wright smear in the 2012 elections. There was a proposal written up and everything, but then it came out in public and he abandoned that idea. He did, however, give a lot of money toward Dinesh D'Souza's hate flick. That isn't reflected here, since I'm sure it went through Americans for Prosperity or Citizens United.

   Ricketts is also the last of the eight-figure public billionaires on the list. Beginning with number six, there's a sharp decline in totals. I'm certain if we ever get any sunlight on 501(c)(4) organizations, we'd learn about lots more gifts from the same people to those organizations, but again...we're just looking at SuperPACs with federal disclosure now.

Continue reading »

Timothy Noah gets through this entire post, noting that even the tea partiers mostly agree with tax hikes, and is still wondering why Republican officials are so out of step with most Republican voters -- without mentioning the famous pledge to Pope Grover. Nobody likes a primary challenge, Tim!

This has been said before but it cannot be said enough. Republican presidential candidates and Republican members of Congress are out of touch with Republican voters on the necessity of raising taxes to reduce the budget deficit. A Washington Post-Bloomberg News poll conducted Oct. 6-9 found that 68 percent of all voters and 54 percent of Republican and Republican-leaning voters favored raising taxes on incomes above $250,000 (i.e., the Obama plan) to tackle the deficit. On the question of whether to reduce Social Security or Medicare benefits to reduce the deficit, 83 and 82 percent, respectively, of all voters opposed. For Republicans and Republican-leaners, these proportions were only slightly lower: 79 and 77 percent, respectively. Entitlement spending will have to be cut, of course, to reduce the deficit, because entitlement spending represents a majority of all federal spending. (Only one-fifth of federal spending resides in the "non-defense discretionary" category currently being whittled to the bone.) But that option is pretty unpopular with just about everyone and it is therefore politically unwise for Republican politicians to try to balance the budget through spending cuts alone.

It's also economically insane to contemplate hacking away at government spending at this particular moment, when unemployment is stuck above 9 percent and the median income is dropping like a stone. As my grade-school friend Daniel Alpert, managing partner of Westwood Capital, writes in a new report for the New America Foundationcoauthored by Robert Hockett of Cornell Law School and New York University economist Nouriel Robini:"Under existing conditions of weak global demand, austerity would simply lead to a vicious circle of yet weaker demand, weaker investment, more unemployment, and still weaker demand, ad infinitum – the familiar “downward spiral” of all “great” depressions wrought by the “paradox of thrift.” This is especially true if austerity is pursued simultaneously in Europe and the United States, as now is in real danger of happening owing to European measures that are just as wrong-headed as now-voguish American ones. And if the emerging economies in Asia and elsewhere begin to experience slower growth rates, as is now being projected, U.S. austerity will do yet more damage."

Have a nice day!

A word of advice to Speaker of the House John Boehner: before you go on national television to tout your House Republican debt reduction plan, you might want to check with House Republicans first. Because as AP, the Washington Times and the Wall Street Journal among others are reporting, Speaker Boehner doesn’t have the votes from the “default deniers” in his own party, forcing him to rewrite his smaller-than-expected bill. All of which means that Democrats are going to have save John Boehner - and the country – from the Republican Party he claims to lead.

Two weeks ago, Speaker Boehner acknowledged that as many as 60 GOP Congressmen “who won't vote to raise the debt ceiling under any circumstances.” That includes, the conservative Washington Times reported, Speaker Boehner’s own bill:

“There are not 218 Republicans in support of this plan,” Rep. Jim Jordan, an Ohio Republican who heads the powerful conservative caucus in the House, told reporters Tuesday morning.

If Mr. Jordan is right, that would mean Speaker John A. Boehner would have to rely on Democrats to pass the $1.2 trillion spending cuts plan — support Democrats’ top vote-counter said he’ll be hard-pressed to gain.

As the AP explained, Boehner’s problems with his own caucus grew worse as the day wore on:

Boehner wasn't helped by an official congressional analysis late Tuesday that said his plan would produce smaller savings than originally promised — less than $1 trillion in spending cuts over the coming decade rather than the $1.2 trillion he estimated on Monday.

Earlier, responding to the conservative Republican opposition, Boehner quickly went on Rush Limbaugh's radio show, then he began one-on-one chats with wavering Republicans on the House floor during midday roll call votes.

"He has to convince a few people," Rep. Tom Petri, R-Wis., observed dryly from a doorway.

For his part, House Minority Leader Eric Cantor pleaded with his fellow Republicans to fall into line. Lamenting that “the debt limit vote sucks,” he told his GOP colleagues to “stop whining.” As Politico reported:

Republicans have three options, Cantor said: risk default, pass Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) plan — which he thinks gives President Barack Obama a blank check — or “call the president’s bluff” by passing the Boehner plan, which not only cuts deeply into domestic spending but calls for a bipartisan commission to find more savings.

At this point, a presidential veto is the least of John Boehner’s worries. While polling shows voters back President Obama in the debt ceiling stand-off, GOP groups like the Club for Growth and presidential candidates like Michele Bachmann came out against his proposal. Meanwhile, House Democrats made clear they will not provide Boehner the votes he needs for passage of his plan. As NPR reported:

If Boehner hopes to make up the lost Republican votes with Democratic votes, Rep. Steny Hoyer had a message for him. Don't count on it…

House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer (Md.) on Tuesday predicted Speaker John Boehner's (R-Ohio) debt-ceiling proposal would win scant support from Democrats.

Hoyer declined to say whether Boehner's bill could clear the House, but stated that "very few" Democrats would support the measure.

Two weeks ago, John Boehner attacked President Obama, proclaiming, “This debt-limit increase is his problem.” Less than 24 hours after going “mano a mano” with Obama, the problem is Speaker Boehner’s.

DOWNLOADS: (204)

PLAYS: (836)

Embed

Sure, President Obama may have negotiated his tax-cut deal with the ostensible Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell. But now the Teabagger King, Sen. Jim DeMint -- the GOP's real Senate leader -- has come out saying "No dice."

A leading conservative voice in the Senate said Tuesday he will vote against the tax cut deal President Obama brokered with Republicans in Congress.

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) said that he will oppose a potential cloture vote on the accord and a final vote if the package advances past a possible filibuster.

"No," the senator said his votes will be on the conservative Hugh Hewitt Show.

DeMint's stance indicates that a number of Republicans are not yet on board with the proposal in addition to a seemingly large bloc of Democrats in the House and Senate.

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said earlier Wednesday he is "pleased" with the deal and hoped that "a large majority of members of the Republican conference will find this a proposal worth supporting."

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who has lead liberal opposition to the plan in the Senate, reiterated Tuesday that he is prepared to filibuster the deal after Obama held an afternoon press conference to sell the plan to skeptics.

The senator explained the timing of his announcement by saying that he was, "kind of holding my fire to let the liberals blast this thing first."

DeMint is following the propaganda line being laid out by the Club for Growth, the right-wing millionaires' political arm, in their attacks on the deal, as you can see from watching the Club's president, Chris Chocola, natter on endlessly this morning on Fox about how tax cuts have supposedly been proven to be the be-all and end-all of economic stimulus plans (when in fact just the opposite is true).

Dave Weigel thinks that DeMint's not putting that great a stake into this position, but David Waldman at DKos wonders if it means Obama's tax-cut deal is effectively defunct:

DeMint said that "the biggest problem" he has with the plan is that it does not extend the tax cuts permanently.

But would it matter if it did? Last week, DeMint ally Tom Coburn (R-OK) objected to and sunk another "deal" that "Senate Minority Leader" Mitch McConnell (R-KY) thought he'd negotiated and that would have given the Senate a chance at a vote last Saturday on just such a plan. Why? Because doing so gives Republicans more opportunities to screw with Democrats, that's why. Is it true that all Republicans want is to serve the rich? Well, maybe. But if there's anything they want even more right now, it's to show the world the sight of Democrats losing as often and on as many fronts as possible. Who gives a crap about the taxes and whatnot? That'll all come soon enough.

Is it all just so totally chaotic and unpredictable that there was just no avoiding it? Well, I certainly haven't considered Mitch McConnell to be the minority leader for some time now. And you know what? Neither has McConnell ...

Most likely this is just political theater thrown up for the benefit of the Tea Partiers. But we'll see how this shakes out in terms of Senate votes.

Utah Senator Bob Bennett's bid for a fourth term was summarily dismissed today at the Utah Republican Party convention. Bennett was a distant third to financier Tim Bridgewater and teabagger Tea Party darling Mike Lee.

Bennett's unforgivable Senate sins were, according to local party hacks officials, daring to consider any form of health care reform, his TARP vote and other ideological votes around constitutional issues like the flag burning amendment. Despite Mitt Romney's endorsement, party purists coalesced around the money and the tea party take-no-prisoners doctrine, respectively.

The winners

Mike Lee is the former head of Ron Paul's Utah operation, Glenn Beck darling, and Tea Party faithful. Along those lines, Lee had received FreedomWorks' endorsement along with Tea Party creator Dick Armey's personal endorsement. That PR move was further augmented with the endorsements of Mark Levin, Erick Erickson, and far-right conservative state legislators.

Yet, Mike Lee still lost to Tim Bridgewater in round two, even with all that Tea Party mojo. Who is Tim Bridgewater, other than a guy with a whole lot of money?

Tim Bridgewater is chairman and founder of Interlink Capital Strategies, a businessman and venture capitalist with ties to Neil Bush and the more mainstream faction of the Republican party. He received the highest number of votes in the second round of voting, but did not receive Tea Party endorsements.

The Utah convention exposes a deep rift slicing right down the center of the Republican Party between the hard-core Ron Paul/Tea Party group and the more traditional pro-business anti-tax group. While it appears that the more traditional conservative values are ahead by a small percentage of the party faithful, there is an unmasked canyon of differences threatening to divide the Republican Party and drive it farther to the right than it already is.

Stay tuned for the primary on June 22nd. It's probably a good idea not to count Bob Bennett out, either. He hasn't ruled out the idea of a write-in campaign, which could make things even more interesting, given the poll numbers pointing to a Bennett win in an open primary.

Update: Senator Jim DeMint has now endorsed Mike Lee, completing the Tea Party Triumvirate. Why did he wait until after Bennett had been eliminated?