Freedumb! Steve Wynn tells workers how to vote: Romney-approved coercion

Huffington Post: Wynn Resorts, the third-largest casino operator in the U.S., recently mailed a “2012 General Election Voter Guide” to its 12,000 employees in Nevada. The bound booklet, obtained by The Huffington Post, identifies candidates whom the Las Vegas-based company supports, leading to what one worker described as a feeling of being pressured to vote for candidates favored by the boss. This pressure is compounded by the behavior of company CEO Steve Wynn, who has used corporate time and media to attack President Barack Obama’s policies. The 67-page booklet is titled “WE Vote,” a reference to the Wynn Encore resort brand, and opens with a letter from President Marilyn Spiegel. The preferred candidates, she writes, “support policies that help promote a friendly business and living environment to Wynn Resorts, our approximately 12,000 employees, and the gaming industry as a whole.” [...]

It’s a strategy that Romney personally endorsed in June, telling business owners, “I hope you make it very clear to your employees what you believe is in the best interest of … their job … in the upcoming elections.” Romney made the comment on a conference call hosted by the National Federation of Independent Businesses, a lobbying group that plans to host an Oct. 30 call to “train” business owners how to speak to employees about the election. Johnson, the Clear Law compliance consultant, pointed out that “unions have for years provided sample ballots to its members showing which candidates the union endorses,” but added that “the union, of course, doesn’t have the ability to fire, or threaten to fire, a member because he or she votes for another candidate.”

###

New York Times: Until 2010, federal law barred companies from using corporate money to endorse and campaign for political candidates — and that included urging employees to support specific politicians. But the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision has freed companies from those restrictions, and now several major companies, including Georgia-Pacific and Cintas, have sent letters or information packets to their employees suggesting — and sometimes explicitly recommending — how they should vote this fall. In these letters, the executives complain about the costs of overregulation, the health care overhaul and possible tax increases. Some letters warn that if President Obama is re-elected, the company could be harmed, potentially jeopardizing jobs.

###

Who else has been threatening their employees with voting “suggestions”? 

Rightwing conservative ideology isn’t winning over the American public, so the one-percent have moved their candidate to the middle (clearly a PR stunt for votes), and are openly threatening workers with layoffs if Pres. Obama wins.


image: What Would Jack Do

Fight. 

Register to vote | Volunteer | Contribute

Romney: the historic financial sway of teachers unions — HUGE threat to democracy!

Corporations are people, my friend. Too bad teachers aren’t:

The bigger problem, Romney said, is that “the person sitting across the table from them should not have received the largest campaign contribution from the teachers union themselves … [It's] an extraordinary conflict of interest and something that should be addressed.” He later added that “we simply can’t have” elected officials who have received large contributions from teachers sitting across from them at the bargaining table “supposedly” to represent the interests of children. “I think it’s a mistake,” Romney said. “I think we have to get the money out of the teachers unions going into campaigns. It’s the wrong way for us to go. We’ve got to separate that.” — Romney: Teacher contributions to politicians should be limited – CBS News

SAYS THE MAN being financed by Sheldon Adelson, “the mega-donor who’s “made history …[as] the first person to spend $70 million to sway a presidential election” and who plans to spend $100 million by Election Day.

Sure, Mitt. It’s the teachers unions and all their tens of dollars that are the problem with campaign contributions and conflicts of interest.

Romney campaign now $11 million in debt

Josh Marshall reports: “Coming into the convention out of primary cash, the Romney campaign borrowed $20 million with general election money it couldn’t spend yet as collateral. The campaign is now $11 million in debt.”

But the LA Times reports: “That liability pales in comparison to Romney’s cash reserves. The campaign announced this month that Romney Victory — the joint fundraising effort between the Romney campaign and the Republican Party — ended August with $168.5 million in the bank.”

And Andrew Sullivan reminds us about where all that money’s coming from:

“a new WaPo/ABC poll looked at opinions regarding outside spending on the presidential race, with 75% “very concerned” about the amount of spending from corporations, unions, and the wealthy. They also note how conservatives don’t seem to understand that the majority of the outside spending is supporting Romney:

2012 09 16 campaign finance graphics 2

This is your brain on Fox “news” and Limbaugh.

President Obama: ” I’m counting on you” to not accept the GOP version of things

But understand, over the next two months the other side is going to spend more money than we’ve ever seen in our lives, with an avalanche of attack ads and insults and making stuff up, just making stuff up. And they’ll be supported by $10 million checks that are being written by wealthy donors who are trying to protect things just as they are.

And what they’re counting on is that you get so discouraged by this, that at a certain point you just say, ‘you know what, I’m going to leave it up to somebody else. I’m going to let big oil write the energy bills, and I’m going to let insurance companies decide when to cover somebody, and we’re going to let politicians dictate what a woman can or can’t do when it comes to her own health.’

They’re counting on you to accept their version of the things the way they ought to be. And I’m counting on something different. I’m counting on you.

You’ve always had powerful forces in this country who benefit from the status quo, and they bet against the American people. And I’ve always bet on you. I don’t believe you’re cynical. I don’t believe in your complacency. Those other guys, they always lose the bet over the long term. And they’re going to lose the bet this time as well.”

— President Barack Obama (via: demnewswire)

Register to vote | Volunteer | Contribute

Wake up, Teapublican base voters

via

…and the billionaires (and their Republican politicians) certainly don’t care about your little social issues either. That’s called ‘lip service’ to get you into the voting booth.

News from Rightwing Nutjob Birtherstan (or what craziness are those billionaires financing now?)

A shadowy super PAC called the Conservative Majority Fund has begun an ad campaign which they claim will disqualify President Obama from running for re-election, according to Think Progress:

“As the ad’s announcer reads his script, a chryon runs at the bottom asking questions such as “What is [Obama's] connection to Bill Ayers?” “What is his current relationship with Rev. Wright?” and “Who paid for his Harvard Education?” The Conservative Majority fund’s website also appears entirely devoted to promoting far right myths, including a campaign to keep the United Nations from seizing people’s guns, an attack on the Obama Administration’s supposed “deep and dirty involvement in the the Fast & Furious gun-running scandal,” and multiple pages devoted to fighting the nearly non-existent problem of voter fraud. Their birther petition calling for Congress to “investigate Barack Obama’s forged birth certificate” prominently features anti-immigrant Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

“The Conservative Majority Fund only filed its initial papers with the Federal Elections Commission a month ago, and has not yet disclosed the extent of its spending on this ad. Their spending is significant enough, however, that the ad ran simultaneously on both CNN and Fox News this morning, and it is twice the length of a normal campaign ad.”

Certainly if could be any (or all) of the few billionaires who have stated they will be shoveling money into Romney’s campaign indirectly through Super PACs. Foster Friess said he’s going to donate “undercover” so it’s “not so high profile.” Casino magnate Sheldon Adelson is throwing money around like it grows on trees (which for him, it might). Adelson has said his political contributions will be “limitless” to get Mitt Romney elected. These billionaires are simply investing in their future.

Seems to me that if anyone involved with the Conservative Majority Fund actually believed in any of the ridiculous conspiracies and far-right myths they’re putting out on President Obama, they wouldn’t be hiding in the shadows. But that’s the point: they don’t believe a word of it. That’s why you can’t find out who’s actually funding and creating this thing. It’s simply racist dog whistling disguised as ‘very serious’ campaign information, paid for by the wealthiest one percenters who want more tax cuts.

And that’s your modern Republican Party. When poor and working class racists and the wealthy elite have one thing in common: the enemy of their enemy is their friend.

Citizens United gave billionaires the opportunity to own the United States government

“What the Supreme Court did in Citizens United is to say to these same billionaires and the corporations they control: ‘You own and control the economy, you own Wall Street, you own the coal companies, you own the oil companies. Now, for a very small percentage of your wealth, we’re going to give you the opportunity to own the United States government.’” — Bernie Sanders (via humanformat)

Mitt Romney is an extremely wealthy man propped up by extremely wealthy donors

How to buy the White House (aka political investing for profit):

“About four dozen donors and families have given at least $1 million to super PACs this election cycle, with three-quarters of them giving to the GOP. Combined, these four dozen donors have provided $130 million of the $308 million super PACs have raised this cycle (more than 40 percent) — a reflection of how much these outside groups are funded by extremely wealthy donors. And that goes double on the GOP side, where nearly half of the $228 million raised by super PACs has come from about three dozen million-dollar donors. [...] Topping our list, of course, is the family of Sheldon and Miriam Adelson, which has combined to give more than $36 million (including funds given by their children). Much of it has gone to a super PAC supporting Newt Gingrich in the Republican presidential primary, but more recently the couple gave $10 million to the top super PAC supporting Mitt Romney. [...] The point? Democrats are making the case that Romney is an extremely wealthy man propped up by extremely wealthy super PAC donors. And at least for now, with super PACs carrying the load for Romney in the early ad wars, there’s a lot of truth to that.” — The Fix’s super PAC Millionaires Club – The Washington Post

What do they hope to get for the millions they’re pouring into Romney? More money, more tax cuts, loopholes, and subsidies, paid for with austerity cuts for the rest of America.

Related: 

Like Mitt Romney, the world’s super rich are hiding at least $21 trillion offshore (Where’s the tax returns?)

image: christopherstreet

Citizens United and transparency: it really is your choice

What are the Democrats working on, with regard to donor transparency and the ridiculous idea that “corporations are people too” Citizens United ruling?

The Raw Story reports that Nancy Pelosi wants to fix the SCOTUS’ Citizens United ruling: “In a conference call, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) told reporters, “We must amend the constitutional to fix Citizens United.” Her latest call to action was spurred by Monday’s Supreme Court decision to overturn Montana’s 1912 law limiting corporate spending in political campaigns based on its 2010 Citizens United ruling. The court’s decision led Montana’s governor Brian Schweitzer (D) and Lt. Gov. John Bohlinger (R) to call for a constitutional amendment to overturn the decision.”

Great! What are the Republicans working on?

Mitch McConnell speaks to Fox NewsThink Progress reports that now Mitch McConnell things campaign donor disclosure amounts to “harassment” and “intimidation:” “In a speech… to the conservative American Enterprise Institute, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) took the stunning view that attempts to let voters know who is paying for political messages amounts to a “political weapon” aimed at intimidating political critics. [...] The whole point of disclosure is allowing voters to know who is speaking and to evaluate the credibility of that person or interest. If disclosure were only about harassment and intimidation of political opponents, surely disclosure of donations to political candidates is just as likely to lead to such harassment of donors.”

House Republican Leadership Address The Media After Conference MeetingAnd the LA Times reports that now that contribution limits for campaigns are gone, Republicans are no longer interested in public transparency: “During their long campaign to loosen rules on campaign money, conservatives argued that there was a simpler way to prevent corruption: transparency. Get rid of limits on contributions and spending, they said, but make sure voters know where the money is coming from. Today, with those fundraising restrictions largely removed, many conservatives have changed their tune. They now say disclosure could be an enemy of free speech.”

Your choice in November is pretty clear: do you believe in greater transparency with regard to corporations, churches, and individuals donating hundreds of millions of dollars to political campaigns, Super PACs and politicians — or do you defend greater secrecy for the wealthiest donors? Vote your choice, knowing that billionaires and profitable corporations aren’t making these business investments (political donations) for nothing. And history, even as recent as the past 30 years, tells us they’re surely not working for the  betterment of our society but to enact laws to make themselves even wealthier.

Republicans now say disclosure of campaign donors is an enemy of “free speech”

The LA Times reports that now that contribution limits for campaigns are gone, Republicans are no longer interested in public transparency: “During their long campaign to loosen rules on campaign money, conservatives argued that there was a simpler way to prevent corruption: transparency. Get rid of limits on contributions and spending, they said, but make sure voters know where the money is coming from. Today, with those fundraising restrictions largely removed, many conservatives have changed their tune. They now say disclosure could be an enemy of free speech.”

The Republican Party doesn’t want us to know who’s buying our government. It’s going to be a surprise.

Email from President Obama today — something to think about

“I will be the first president in modern history to be outspent in his re-election campaign.” — email sent by President Obama today

Donate

Related:

Sheldon Adelson plans to purchase the very best White House his money can buy

Daily Intel reports: Conservative casino magnate Sheldon Adelson has reportedly pledged a total of $35 million to three conservative nonprofits: the Karl Rove–linked Crossroads GPS, an unspecified group with ties to the Koch brothers, and a third affiliated with House Majority Leader Eric Cantor. This is in addition to the $10 million he gave to pro-Romney super-PAC Restoring Our Future last week… Sources say he’s ready to commit $100 million to right-wing causes and candidates this year.

Remember that $100 million to Sheldon Adelson is about $300 – $400 to an average family.

Additionally, John McCain said recently that Sheldon Adelson “is indirectly injecting millions of dollar in Chinese foreign money into Mitt Romney’s presidential election effort,” according to Josh Rogin.

Those facts would probably be reported more by the mainstream media, if all the billionaires didn’t own the mainstream media.

How to buy a Romney White House: Foster Friess and The Daily Caller

Earlier I posted that both Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Wyoming almost-billionaire businessman Foster Friess were at the Faith and Freedom Conference yesterday. McConnell spoke about wanting to protect Republican donors from more disclosure laws — to protect them from “public scrutiny.”  Friess talked about his plans to donate to Romney’s campaign ‘undercover,’ giving money to Romney superPACs through 501(c)4 organizations which wouldn’t disclose where the contributions came from.

After Neil Munro of the The Daily Caller heckled President Obama yesterday in the Rose Garden, during his address on immigration and the Dream Act, and Tucker Carlson (Munro’s boss) obviously approved, it’s worth noting that Foster Friess helped start the Daily Caller with $3 million in seed money — and continues to invest in it.

Video of the Day: In a serious breach of etiquette, Neil Munro heckled the president and was immediately condemned. This makes sense when you realize that the Daily Caller isn’t “reporting” news and isn’t a neutral media outlet in any way. The Daily Caller, Tucker Carlson, and Neil Munro take their marching orders from their owners like Foster Friess who have a clear political agenda and have enough money to make it happen.

CNN commentary:

Imagine the rending of garments on the conservative side, had this been done to a Republican president. Dixie Chicks, anyone?

John McCain: Sheldon Adelson is pumping Chinese money into Romney’s campaign

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said that casino magnate Sheldon Adelson “is indirectly injecting millions of dollar in Chinese foreign money into Mitt Romney’s presidential election effort,” Josh Rogin reports. (via: Political Wire):

“Much of Mr. Adelson’s casino profits that go to him come from his casino in Macau, which says that obviously, maybe in a roundabout way foreign money is coming into an American political campaign,” McCain said in an interview on PBS’s News Hour. “That is a great deal of money, and we need a level playing field and we need to go back to the realization… that we have to have a limit on the flow of money and corporations are not people,” he said. Adelson announced Thursday he would be giving $10 million to the pro-Romney Super PAC Restore Our Future, and reports stated his future contributions to pro-Romney groups could be “limitless.” [...] Romney has also come under criticism for his former corporation Bain Capital’s business ties to Chinese state-owned firms, some of which are linked to the Chinese military and simultaneously seek to acquire U.S. technology firms.

You have to wonder why McCain’s complaining. He’s been firmly on the side of ‘anything to win‘ and ‘politics before country‘ before.

Related: McConnell doesn’t want you to know which billionaires want to buy a Republican for the White House

McConnell doesn’t want you to know which billionaires want to buy a Republican for the White House

Sam Stein reports on why Mitch McConnell wants to protect the very wealthy from your “scrutiny” and “backlash” –

In a series of speeches and interviews over the past day, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) argued against adding a further layer of disclosure to the campaign finance system, suggesting that the Obama administration would use it to browbeat political opponents.

The Kentucky Republican has long been one of Congress’ foremost advocates of a far-reaching interpretation of First Amendment rights. And his remarks, first to Fox News, then to the Faith and Freedom Conference and finally to the American Enterprise Institute, followed in that vein.

…Donors to politically active nonprofit groups, he said, do not deserve to be subjected to public scrutiny or backlash.

That’s really very interesting, considering that Buzzfeed (Romney’s personal online PR firm) is reporting that Santorum’s old sugar daddy, Foster Friess, says he’s going to donate to Romney’s campaign “undercover:”

“Well I’m going to do that more undercover, I’m going to do it through a lot of c4′s so it’s not so high profile,” Friess said at the Faith and Freedom Conference, where he is scheduled to speak on Saturday. “I was stunned to see how much attention — I had no idea what happened, I must have had 60 or 70 interviews.” “So I think if I do it through c4′s, I can keep a lower profile which is probably better.” Friess explained the tactic further. “If you give to a c4, it doesn’t get disclosed,” Friess said. ”If you give to a c4, it doesn’t get disclosed,” Friess said. “So if I give money to various organizations, nobody knows what I’m giving. Even my wife won’t know.”

Notice they were both at the Faith and Freedom Conference.