Pete Wilson, who opposed Proposition 13, is on board of Chamber of Commerce that attacked Brown for opposing Prop 13

Deceiving voters is apparently the goal of the Chamber of Commerce, and, one suspects, the goal of Pete Wilson and Meg Whitman.


"The chamber ad fails to point out that the organization took the same position for which it is now criticizing Brown...The chamber's commercial and Web site acknowledge that the job losses to which it refers have occurred since 2007—long after Brown was governor and while Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who received the chamber's endorsement, was in office."

Groups say attack ad against Brown violates law
By JULIET WILLIAMS Associated Press Writer
04/07/2010

SACRAMENTO, Calif.—Two groups complained Wednesday to California's campaign watchdog agency about a television commercial funded by the California Chamber of Commerce that attacks Democratic gubernatorial candidate Jerry Brown.

The ad and an accompanying Web site say Brown, the state's current attorney general, raised spending as governor from 1975 to 1983 and opposed Proposition 13, which limited property tax increases.

"California's lost 1 million jobs. We're $200 billion in debt, and Jerry Brown has a 35-year record of higher spending and increased taxes," says the ad, which the chamber said in a news release will air "throughout virtually all of California in the coming weeks."

The California Democratic Party and the Santa Monica-based group Consumer Watchdog complained Wednesday to the Fair Political Practices Commission, arguing that the ad violated California elections law.

The groups say the ad, which was not paid for by the chamber's political action committee, is intended to defeat Brown and therefore should be subject to disclosure rules about who paid for it. They also say it's costing the chamber more than $1 million.

They also note that Republican candidate Meg Whitman's campaign manager, former Gov. Pete Wilson, is on the chamber's board...

The chamber's commercial and Web site acknowledge that the job losses to which it refers have occurred since 2007—long after Brown was governor and while Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who received the chamber's endorsement, was in office.

While Brown did oppose Proposition 13, which was approved by about two-thirds of voters in 1978, so did Wilson and the chamber, along with the California Taxpayers Association. They supported an alternative measure for a split-roll tax with lower taxes for owner-occupied homes.

The chamber ad fails to point out that the organization took the same position for which it is now criticizing Brown...

Comcast wins against FCC in effort to control what we see on the Internet

It seems to me that we have too many federal judges who are more loyal to business interests than to the constitution of the United States. Recently the Supreme Court said businesses can spend as much as they want on political ads; now a federal court says owners of cable networks can actually give privileges in exchange for money (or political favors?) as to what information is provided to the public via the Internet.


FCC loses key ruling on Internet `neutrality'
By JOELLE TESSLER, AP Technology Writer
April 6, 2010

People use computers at an internet cafe in Wuhan Reuters – People use computers at an internet cafe in Wuhan, Hubei province, January 23, 2010. REUTERS/Stringer
Related Quotes Symbol Price Change
CMCSA 18.76 -0.06
GOOG 568.22 -2.79
T 26.31 0.00
VZ 31.20 -0.26
By JOELLE TESSLER, AP Technology Writer Joelle Tessler, Ap Technology Writer – 3 hrs 1 min ago

WASHINGTON – A federal court threw the future of Internet regulations into doubt Tuesday with a far-reaching decision that went against the Federal Communications Commission and could even hamper the government's plans to expand broadband access in the United States.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the FCC lacks authority to require broadband providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing over their networks. That was a big victory for Comcast Corp., the nation's largest cable company, which had challenged the FCC's authority to impose such "network neutrality" obligations on broadband providers.

Supporters of network neutrality, including the FCC chairman, have argued that the policy is necessary to prevent broadband providers from favoring or discriminating against certain Web sites and online services, such as Internet phone programs or software that runs in a Web browser. Advocates contend there is precedent: Nondiscrimination rules have traditionally applied to so-called "common carrier" networks that serve the public, from roads and highways to electrical grids and telephone lines...

The Lincoln Club gets federal Judge Irma Gonzalez to suspend San Diego's campaign finance laws

The Lincoln Club Gets a New Stick
by Scott Lewis
March 22, 2010

I'm not sure many people realized just how influential the Lincoln Club of San Diego just became. Well, wait. I should rephrase. How potentially influential the club became.

Last month, federal Judge Irma Gonzalez suspended many of the city's complicated campaign finance laws and I don't think the magnitude of what has changed has set in....Check out what's happened to the Lincoln Club.

Up until last month, if you wanted to support a candidate you could simply put up a billboard for them yourself. Spend as much as you want. It's free speech, have a blast. If you wanted to get together with some friends and each, say, give $20,000 to the effort, no problem. Again, go nuts. But you had to disclose, on the billboard, who paid for it.

If you didn't want it to say your name and wanted to communicate that your cause was more of a general popular one, you might want to put a committee's name on it. For instance, you might want it to say something like "Paid for by the Committee that Loves San Diego" instead of your actual names. If so, the city limited you and your friends to donations of $500 each.

At $500 each, you need a lot -- a lot -- of friends to make something significant happen. Let's say you would want to, like the firefighters in 2004, dump $100,000 into an ad campaign. You'd need 200 people to give $500 each. That might be possible but raising that much money would require a campaign of its own. On the other hand, the Lincoln Club has access to many who could give well more than $1,000 to an advertising blitz if they were motivated enough and the rules allowed.

This is what the Lincoln Club faced. It has an active membership of Republican supporters, many of whom have the means to spend a lot more than $500 each on a billboard. But they were limited to that and with a low limit like that, they couldn't get together behind the Lincoln Club banner and do as much as their money might normally seem to allow.

That's why they sued. A federal judge decided their suit had merit in light of this decision -- enough merit to at least suspend the city's rules for a bit.

And now, the members of the Lincoln Club of San Diego -- and any other group of people -- have the power to raise and spend as much as they'd like. And they can do it behind their organization's banner.

Though it has been active for years in school board and City Council races the club now can deploy far more resources. Instead of just mailers, the group's small membership can now raise more money and put out billboard and television campaigns. It can produce videos and mount websites...

Supreme Court OKs unlimited corporate spending on elections

Supreme Court OKs unlimited corporate spending on elections
By David G. Savage
January 22, 2010
LA Times

Overturning a century-old restriction, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday that corporations could spend as much as they wanted to sway voters in federal elections.

In a landmark 5-4 decision, the court's conservative bloc said that corporations had the same right to free speech as individuals, and for that reason the government could not stop corporations from spending to help their favored candidates.

The ruling, which will presumably apply as well to labor unions and other organizations, is likely to have an effect on this year's congressional elections. Many political analysts and election-law experts predict that millions of extra dollars will flood into this fall's contests, much of it benefiting Republican candidates.

Republicans praised the decision as a victory for wide-open political speech, but Democrats slammed it as a win for big money...



Obama calls Supreme Court decision a victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies, who can now spend all they want on TV ads

Biz, Unions Freed to Spend Big on Elections
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
January 21, 2010


WASHINGTON (AP) -- Coming soon to your TV, thanks to the Supreme Court -- an even bigger flood of political ads.

A bitterly divided court vastly increased the power of big business and unions to influence government decisions Thursday by freeing them to spend their millions directly to sway elections for president and Congress.

As a side consequence, the election-season blizzard of ads on Americans TV screens is bound to increase.

The ruling reversed a century-long trend to limit the political muscle of corporations, organized labor and their massive war chests. It also recast the political landscape just as crucial midterm election campaigns are getting under way.

In its sweeping 5-4 ruling, the court set the stage for a wave of likely repercussions -- from new pressures on lawmakers to heed special interest demands to increasingly boisterous campaigns featuring highly charged ads that drown out candidate voices.

While the full consequences of the decision were hard to measure, politicians made clear whom they believed benefited. Democrats, led by President Barack Obama, condemned the decision while Republicans cheered it.

Still, more labor and corporate money in the political system could dilute the role of both political parties.

And the decision seeded the ground for further challenges to an already weakened system of campaign finance regulations.

The justices weighed two fundamental political forces -- the power of the central government and the concentration of corporate wealth -- and tilted decidedly in favor of the latter. The opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy made a vigorous argument based on the Constitution for the right of the public to be exposed to a multitude of ideas and against the ability of government to limit political speech, even in the interest of fighting corruption.

''The censorship we now confront is vast in its reach,'' Kennedy wrote.

Strongly dissenting, Justice John Paul Stevens said, ''The court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation.''

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas joined Kennedy to form the majority in the main part of the case. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor joined Stevens' dissent, parts of which he read aloud in the courtroom.

The court overturned two earlier decisions and threw out parts of a 63-year-old law that said companies and unions can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to produce and run their own campaign ads urging the election or defeat of particular candidates by name. The decision, which applies to independent spending that is not coordinated with candidates, threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states.

The justices also struck down part of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that barred union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns.

It leaves in place a prohibition on direct contributions to candidates from corporations and unions and didn't touch the McCain-Feingold ban on unlimited corporate and union donations to political parties. Nor did it disturb companies' right to solicit voluntary contributions to political action committees that can donate directly to candidates.

Corporations and unions would still have to identify the sources of money for their political activity -- a provision of current law that the court upheld in an 8-1 vote...