PEOPLE FOR BLOG

Known Money, Secret Money

OpenSecrets.org reported yesterday that on the whole, millionaire and billionaire self-financed candidates pretty much flopped in Tuesday’s elections. Four out of every five of the 58 federal-level candidates who spent more than $500,000 of their own money on their campaigns ended up losing in the primary or general election. Among those who lost their expensive gambles were former World Wrestling Entertainment CEO Linda McMahon, who spent more than $46 million on her Senate campaign in Connecticut and Carly Fiorina, who spent more than $5.5 million of her own money in her California Senate race.

And OpenSecret’s data doesn’t even count the most prominent big-spending loss this year, California’s Meg Whitman, who spent a whopping $141 million on her gubernatorial bid.

Self-financed candidates generally have a fairly dismal track record of winning elections—partly because some lack the political experience to pull off a successful campaign, partly because voters reject the idea of a person buying themselves political office. (The Washington Post and the American Prospect both looked into the self-funding paradox earlier this year).

So, you might conclude from this, money can’t buy you electoral love. But the data from other kinds of campaign spending tells a very different story.

Public Citizen reported Wednesday that spending by outside groups—like those we profiled in our After Citizens United report—had a huge impact on the outcome of elections throughout the country. In 58 of the 74 races in which power changed hands yesterday, the candidate who benefitted from the most outside spending also won their election, Public Citizen’s analysis found. Of course, the cause and effect can go both ways—special interests often back shoe-in candidates just to be in their good graces once they’re in office—but it’s undeniable that spending by outside groups really did make a difference in many close races.

The Chamber of Commerce alone promised to spend $75 million to influence this year’s elections…more than 90% of which had, as of the last reporting deadline, gone to support Republican candidates. The Chamber, like many of the pro-GOP power players in this election, spent millions of dollars of money from undisclosed sources to buy ads that often had very little to do with its real goals.

Polling shows that the vast majority of Americans really don’t like the idea of corporations and interest groups pouring money into elections…and also really don’t like it that outside groups don’t have to reveal the major sources of their money.

But not liking the idea of wealthy people or corporations or powerful special interest groups trying to buy elections isn’t much help when you’re seeing a convincing ad on TV from a group with a name like the “Commission on Hope, Growth, and Opportunity”—and have no way of finding out what the money and motivations behind the ad are.

When a candidate is bankrolling her own campaign, voters know what’s going on, and can go into the polling place knowing full well who’s most invested in that candidate’s success. When a candidate is backed by millions of dollars from shadowy interest groups, the equation gets more difficult. The money’s there, but it’s impossible to tell what that money is meant to buy. As PFAW’s Michael Keegan wrote in the Huffington Post last week, that system works great for candidates who back the interests of corporate America and the wealthiest citizens…but isn’t so great for those who don’t have fat bank accounts ready to help them out.

Interestingly, one candidate who invested heavily in his own campaign did notably well on Tuesday—Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, who beat incumbent senator Russ Feingold. Johnson invested more than $8 million in his campaign (almost twice as much as he received from individual contributors). But Johnson was also propped up by over a million dollars worth of ads paid for by out-of-state pro-corporate groups.
 

PFAW

Behind The Republican Money Web

Yesterday’s vote does not mean the end for the many Super PACs and shadowy political organizations that have emerged this election season. By raising hundreds of millions of dollars from individuals and corporations, often without having to disclose their sources of funding, these groups are able to maintain their political apparatus and prepare for the 2012 election. American Crossroads, the Karl Rove-linked Super PAC, is already crafting its role for the next election. Mike Duncan, the former head of the Republican National Committee and Chair of American Crossroads, told the New York Times, “We’ve planted the flag for permanence, and we believe that we will play a major role for 2012.”

Back in September, Time magazine discussed how pro-GOP groups such as American Crossroads and the American Action Network were working with Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, the former RNC chief and current head of the Republican Governors Association. Republican notables and fundraisers “first convened at Karl Rove’s home,” and became nicknamed “the Weaver Terrace group, named for the Washington street on which Rove lives.” American Crossroads and its sister group Crossroads GPS, which does not disclose its donors, spent over $38 million combined to attack Democrats, and the American Action Network spent close to $20 million this year.

Now with the election over, Politico reveals that pro-GOP groups, the US Chamber of Commerce, and the National Republican Congressional Committee (an official Republican Party wing) were intensely coordinating their political efforts. Other Weaver Terrace group members, such as the 60 Plus Association and the American Future Fund, spent tens of millions of dollars against Democrats, but the US Chamber of Commerce and the NRCC made even bigger expenditures, spending $31.7 million and $44.5 million, respectively. As Jeanne Cummings of Politico described how “coordinated attacks” by Weaver Terrace group members “turned political campaigns largely into contests between business-backed, GOP outside groups and the Democratic incumbents.” Pro-GOP outside groups spent $187 million in 2010, more than double their pro-Democratic counterparts, and Cummings reveals how the organizations collaborated in order to maximize their impact:

The groups – including familiar names like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and American Crossroads – shared their target lists and TV-time data to ensure vulnerable Democrats got the full brunt of GOP spending.

Republican groups had never coordinated like this before, participants said, and backed by millions in corporate cash and contributions by secret donors, they were able to wield outsized influence on the results Tuesday night. The joint efforts were designed to spread the damage to as many of the majority Democrats as possible, without wasting money by doubling-up in races where others were already playing.

The National Republican Congressional Committee, which could not legally coordinate with the outside groups, even took the extraordinary step of publicly revealing its own ad buy strategy.



The Chamber, which set aside $75 million in undisclosed corporate donations for the political season, is listed by Center for Responsive Politics as the biggest of independent players, investing nearly $33 million in radio, television and direct mail advertising alone.

Directly behind the Chamber on the Center’s outside group ranking is the coalition of groups formed by Rove and Gillespie. They are: American Action Network, which spent $26 million; American Crossroads, which invested $21 million, and Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies, which sank $17 million into ads and turnout communications in a plan to obliterate the Democrats’ Senate and House majorities.

Although donors to the Crossroads affiliates are largely unknown, the founders made no secret of the fact that they intended to take advantage of the Supreme Court ruling and tap into the vast resources of corporate America to raise more than $50 million help Republicans retake the Congress.

While that sum alone was enough to make Democrats’ nervous, the Crossroads founders also set out a more ambitious goal: To bring together the disparate new and old GOP political players so they could coordinate their efforts and maximize the damage on the political battlefield.

Cummings also shows how this plan worked out over the airways in competitive congressional districts:

In Pennsylvania, the Republican groups called in multiple players to bombard a half-dozen House Democrats, including some facing significantly underfunded Republican opponents. In the quest to oust Democrat Chris Carney, 60 Plus and the Chamber combined to spend about $1 million. The 60 Plus Association teamed up with the Center for Individual Freedom, another group that doesn’t disclose donors, to shell incumbent Democrat Rep. Paul Kanjorski with more than $600,000 worth of ads.

The close collaboration of pro-corporate groups only increases the need for greater transparency in the political process. Americans this election have seen dozens if not hundreds of ads and received substantial amounts of direct mail and phone calls from groups who reveal little information about themselves and do not have to disclose their sources of funding. Voters deserve the right to know who is working towards the election or defeat certain candidates for office, and overwhelmingly support disclosure laws. As such organizations creating new partnerships and intensifying their coordination, Congress needs to pass the DISCLOSE Act to allow the public to know who is behind these outside groups.

 

 

PFAW

Election Day Voter "Fraud" and Intimidation

Election Day saw a number of efforts to intimidate or trick Democrats out of their constitutional right to vote, stoke fear of rampant voter fraud, and delegitimize possible victories by Democrats. (See here for the days leading up to Tuesday). Here are a few examples:

  • Minnesota vote challengers were so aggressive they had to be reined in by election officials.
  • Also in Minnesota, the state Republican chair blamed voting machine failures and other problems on "[Democratic Secretary of State] Mark Ritchie and his ACORN buddies."
  • In Nevada yesterday, Sharron Angle filed a voter intimidation complaint with DoJ over an e-mail from a Reid campaign worker to a local casino urging it to ensure that employees had a chance to vote.
  • In Maryland, Democrats received telephone calls late on Election Day telling them that O’Malley had won and they could "relax" (i.e., not vote).
  • In Texas, African Americans were subjected to a flier telling them that a vote for the entire Democratic ticket would be counted as a vote for the Republican ticket instead.
PFAW

Listen Live: What the 2010 Elections Mean For America

This afternoon at 4:00 PM Eastern, Peter Montgomery, a Senior Fellow at People For, will be on WBAI in New York discussing yesterday’s elections and how our 5 Election Day Stories to Watch are playing out.

You can listen live here.

And read People For President Michael B. Keegan’s full analysis, What the 2010 Elections Say About America: Stories People For the American Way is Watching, in the Huffington Post.


 

PFAW

Rogues to Watch Out For

Whatever the results of today’s elections, there’s little doubt that the incoming Congress will shift drastically to the Right. How far right?

In a new piece in the Huffington Post, People For’s president, Michael Keegan, examines some of the trends among front-running GOP candidates this year, including extreme anti-government views (to the point of abolishing the Department of Education and phasing out Social Security) and a loyal allegiance to Big Business. We’ll be watching how these issues play out in today’s election…but what about when some of these folks are in office?

Ezra Klein writes today about the “end of the do-something Congress.” Despite GOP obstruction, the 111th Congress has pushed through some huge legislative initiatives—from Health Care Reform to the Stimulus to the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.

Republican leaders have promised that if they retake majorities in Congress, their main goal will be legislative gridlock. Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell put it like this: “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”

It’s a dismal goal for people supposedly in the public service business. But what the focus on the coming GOP gridlock hides is what the new far-right GOP would do if they didn’t face any opposition from a strong progressive presence in Congress or the executive branch. As today’s Huffington Post piece and our Rogues Gallery of right-wing candidates explain, it’s not pretty.
 



Pat Toomey

PFAW

Breaking fraud/suppression news from Election Day

With Election Day half over (at least for some), we have three new reports of the Right Wing’s voter-fraud fraud and voter suppression. This follows up on a couple of the items Miranda shared earlier this afternoon.

Florida. Consider this another case of the Right fighting back against a government that fails to buy into their voter-fraud fraud. The Rick Scott for Governor Campaign and the Florida Republican Party recently launched the Honest Voter Hotline.

While we are hopeful that Election Day will be free of any wrongdoing, we have seen that allies of the Democrat Party, have shown a willingness to commit fraud across the country, in both this election cycle and recent years. Given the tightness of the polls, all examples of fraud must be addressed to preserve the integrity of the election.

We, too, want Election Day to be free of wrongdoing – and free of claims that voter fraud is a pervasive national problem when it simply isn’t.

Kansas. State Attorney General Steve Six has opened an investigation into weekend robocalls alleged to not only give the incorrect election date but also false information regarding voter ID. Kansas requires ID only for first-time voters, and that’s only if they didn’t provide ID when registering to vote. Targets of the robocalls reported being told to bring their voter registration cards and proof of homeownership. Neither is necessarily required, and voting certainly isn’t restricted to homeowners. The original complaint was filed by the Kansas Democratic Party based on reports it received from individual voters.

South Carolina. Reports have surfaced regarding harassment targeted at Black students and Black voters generally. At Benedict College, a historically Black institution, the perpetrators have done what they can to make voting difficult or uncomfortable, even forcing some voters to fill out provisional ballots. At Sumter’s North Hope Center precinct, and possibly other locations, they’re manufacturing a similar air of uneasiness.

 

PFAW

Sheldon Whitehouse Analyzes "Judicial Activism"

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse has authored a thoughtful piece in the National Law Journal, one that makes an important contribution to our national dialogue on the role of the Supreme Court in Americans' lives. This is a must-read analysis of "judicial activism" - what it means, and how to identify it.

For years, using propaganda like "activist courts" and "legislating from the bench," the Right has demagogued against judges who protect basic American values like church-state separation, equal rights, freedom of speech, and the right to privacy. But the Roberts Court has made clear that the Right doesn't believe their own propaganda about "judicial activism."

Focusing attention on the real meaning of “judicial activism,” rather than simply using the term as an epithet to denigrate decisions one disagrees with, Sen. Whitehouse identifies five key characteristics - the "red flags"- that unmistakably signal judicial activism:

First, an activist court would be less likely to respect the judgments of the American people as expressed through state and federal legislation. ...

Second, an activist court would chafe at unwelcome prior precedents of the court. ...

Third, an activist court, facing the perennial choice between securing a broad consensus and allowing a bare majority to carry the day, would go down the path that allowed it to reach farther in the ideologically satisfactory direction. As a result, an activist court would likely render 5-4 decisions rather than strive to find broader common ground across the court. ...

Fourth, a discernible pattern of results would likely emerge: Whether conservative or liberal, an activist court would issue decisions consistent with its ideological preferences. ...

Fifth, an activist court might be prepared to violate rules and tenets of appellate decision-making that have long guided courts of final appeal. ...

Sen. Whitehouse then analyzes the jurisprudence of the conservative bloc on the Supreme Court and demonstrates, step by step, that it raises all five of the red flags of "judicial activism." His objective analysis shows that the conservative justices who are praised by the right wing exemplify the judicial activism that the right claims to oppose.

The centerpiece of a generation’s worth of right-wing propaganda on the courts crumbles.

The article finishes on a hopeful note:

"Judicial activism" is often in the eye of the beholder. If, as I have suggested here, we can identify red flags for judicial activism, the conservative bloc on the current Supreme Court is flying all of those flags. Let's hope that [the 2010-2011] term sees a renewal of the best traditions of the Court, not merely the imposition on our Republic of the ideological or political will of a determined, but bare, majority of the justices.

Indeed, let us hope.

PFAW

The Morning Voter Suppression Roundup

Here at People For, we’ve been following right-wing voter suppression schemes…often carried out under the guise of preventing “voter fraud,” a proven non-problem that has become code simply for minorities and young people voting.

This morning, reports of voter suppression and intimidation started coming in from around the country. Here are a few of them. We’ll keep you updated as the day goes on.

  • Columbia, South Carolina: Jack and Jill Politics reports that Tea Party “election watchers” are protesting student votes at the historically black Benedict College, and making students votes with provisional ballots. At at least one location in Sumter, SC, the blog reports, activists are shouting at people heading to the polls.
  • Houston, Texas: The Texas Observer reports that Tea Party-recruited poll watchers have been intimidating voters in largely minority areas during early voting.
  • Kansas: According to Think Progress, an unidentified group in Kansas has been robocalling voters telling them falsely that they need proof of home ownership to vote…”on Wednesday.”
PFAW

3 Reasons to Vote Tuesday

There are many reasons why it is important to vote tomorrow. Here are three of them:

  1. Because you care about a government that cares about people. Take a look at our Rogues’ Gallery of Right-Wing Senate candidates. A coalition of extreme far-right candidates, led by Senator Jim DeMint, want to push a radical agenda that will chip away at individual freedoms while making life even tougher for middle class and working class Americans. These candidates, backed by corporate interests, have plenty of allies running for the House and for statehouses throughout the country. If they’re in charge, they won’t bring progress to a standstill, they’ll start rolling it back.
  2. Because you’re a human being. The Supreme Court ruled this year that corporations have “free speech” rights to spend money to influence elections. Exxon and BP, Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan can now spend millions of dollars from their treasuries to sway your vote. We real human beings may not have millions of dollars to spend for our favorite candidates, but we have one advantage over corporations. We can cast a vote.
  3. Because they don’t want you to. The Right has been up in arms this year about the supposed threat of “voter fraud.” The number of cases of actual voter fraud is minute, and widespread fraud wouldn’t even logically make sense, but the Right loves to talk about it as a way to prevent young, poor, and minority citizens from voting. Don’t let them.

Find your polling place here.

PFAW

Video Game Violence and the First Amendment

Tomorrow at the Supreme Court, the Justices will hear arguments over whether the state can limit minors’ access to extreme depictions of violence.

California law bans the sale or rental of violent video games to minors. In adopting the law, the California legislature considered scientific evidence showing a correlation between playing violent video games and an increase in aggressive thoughts and behavior, antisocial behavior, and desensitization to violence in both minors and adults. The law was designed to give parents greater control over whether their children have access to the most violent video games.

Although the law was enacted several years ago, courts have kept it from going into effect on the basis that it violates the First Amendment.

The law parallels a New York law restricting the sale of non-obscene sexual material to minors that the Court upheld in the 1960s. Specifically, it covers those violent video games where:

  • a reasonable person, considering the game as a whole, would find that it appeals to a deviant or morbid interest of minors;
  • it is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the community as to what is suitable for minors; and
  • it causes the game, as a whole, to lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.

California argues that, for the purposes of the First Amendment, the Supreme Court should apply the same relaxed standard to violent material as it does to sexual material:

[I]t should make no constitutional difference whether the material depicts sex or violence. ... [T]he Act must be upheld so long as it was not irrational for the California legislature to determine that exposure to the material regulated by the statute is harmful to minors.

This would mark a significant change in First Amendment law.

Just the fact that the Court agreed to hear this case is interesting. The Court often takes a case where there is disagreement among circuit courts on how to interpret a particular law. But here, there is no such disagreement: Lower courts have uniformly struck down laws such as this as violating the First Amendment. The fact that the Supreme Court decided to hear the case anyway may signal that the Justices are ready to make the change that California is asking for.

PFAW

Still more on the voter "fraud" / voter intimidation front

Some more on the voter "fraud" / voter intimidation front:

  • Alabama’s Republican Secretary of State has offered a $5000 bounty for "information reported to her office that leads to a felony conviction of voter fraud."
  • A federal district judge has ruled that conservatives in Minnesota rallying against voter fraud cannot wear their "Please I.D. Me" buttons or their Tea Party tee-shirts in or around the polling locations, since the areas where people vote are supposed to be free of political messages.
  • Media Matters has put together a video compiling right-wing media covering questionable GOP allegations of voter fraud. Despite the little evidence that exists to support these claims, Fox News has declared that the network will continue cover voter fraud allegations "in every show."
  • Media Matters also takes a look at the voter intimidation stories that Fox News either ignores or totally distorts while playing up phony voter fraud stories.
  • Noting that “voter intimidation is a form of voter fraud,” Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner is investigating the McDonald’s franchise owner who sent his employees a letter with their paychecks saying they should vote for Republican candidates if they wanted raises.
PFAW

Employment Discrimination Case at the Supreme Court

Elections will not be the only thing happening on Election Day. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in an important employment discrimination case where the official who fired the plaintiff was free of bias, but her decision was influenced by the bias of others.

Although Staub v. Proctor Hospital involves a rather narrow federal anti-discrimination statute - the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), which generally prohibits discrimination in civilian employment on the basis of military service - the reasoning of the decision could apply to the larger universe of federal anti-discrimination statutes. Therefore, this case might affect millions of American workers both in and out of the military who have the right to be treated fairly.

Vincent Staub sued his employer after he was dismissed from his job as a hospital technician. The hospital official who fired him had no unlawful motives. However, according to Staub, she relied on false information provided to her by his supervisor, who did act out of bias against Staub’s military service. Moreover, according to Staub, the decision-maker failed to vet that information in any meaningful way. At trial, the jury returned a verdict in Staub’s favor, but the hospital won a reversal on appeal.

At issue before the Supreme Court is whether an employer can be held liable for employment discrimination based on the unlawful intent of officials who influenced - but who did not themselves make - an adverse employment decision. If the employer can be held liable, then under what circumstances? How much influence must the biased official’s actions have had before that bias can be attributed to the employer? What if the biased action is not the sole cause for the employment decision? How easy or difficult should it be for an employer to evade liability in these circumstances?

As the Supreme Court determines how to answer these questions, it should keep in mind Congress’s repeated efforts to ensure that discrimination has no place in the modern American workplace.

PFAW

The Most Outrageous Ads of the Election

This election cycle has experienced a massive flood of political spending following the dramatic weakening of campaign finance laws in cases such as Citizens United and SpeechNow. According to Political Correction, between August 1st and October 29th, the ten biggest right-wing groups, many of which are backed by contributions by corporations and don’t publicly disclose their donors, have spent about $100 million to air 109,826 ads. Many of the conservative candidates and organizations have been employing false claims and polarizing smears in their ads meant to foment cultural divisions and discredit progressive legislation. Here are just a handful of the most outrageous and irresponsible ads used this election year:

Anti-Muslim Rhetoric

The Right Wing has used the Park51 Community Center as a way to provoke fear, stoke divisions, and promote intolerance. The debate surrounding the community center has been riddled with attacks on religious freedom and baseless claims that the project’s organizers have ties to extremist groups, and the right has attempted to make the community center in Lower Manhattan an election issue in places like Iowa and North Carolina.

American Future Fund:

Renee Ellmers (Republican nominee, NC-02)

Anti-Health Care Reform

The recently passed health care reform law has been hammered by outside groups and conservative politicians with numerous dishonest and misleading attacks. Independent fact checkers have confirmed that the law does not use taxpayer funds to pay for abortion or drugs like Viagra for sex offenders. Other false and deceptive claims include allegations that the reform law establishes death panels, creates an army of IRS agents to arrest people without coverage, cuts Medicare benefits, and leads to the government takeover of the health care system.

American Action Network:

Susan B. Anthony List & CitizenLink (Focus on the Family Action):

Anti-Immigrant Extremism

Conservative politicians are taking cues from the Right Wing Playbook on Immigration Reform by attempting to portray Latinos in America as violent criminals who threaten White Americans. While smearing Comprehensive Immigration Reform and the DREAM Act, such anti-immigrant ads unfairly depict Latinos as invaders, gangsters, and welfare-beneficiaries. Even Sharron Angle tried to distance herself from her campaign’s ads by claiming that they are not Latinos but could actually be “terrorists” from Canada.

Sharron Angle (Republican nominee, NV-SEN):

Sen. David Vitter (Republican nominee, LA-SEN):

PFAW

In an Open Letter, People For Urges ABC to Distance Itself from Breitbart

Right-wing activist and noted smear concocter Andrew Breitbart announced Friday that he would be appearing on ABC News tomorrow as an election night "analyst." Faced with backlash from progressive groups, ABC News has said that Breitbart will appear only as a guest on an online town hall discussion. In an open letter to ABC News President David Westin today, People For's Michael Keegan responds that providing any sort of platform for Breitbart legitimizes his deceitful practices:

Dear Mr. Westin:

We at People For the American Way are deeply concerned to hear of your plans to host activist Andrew Breitbart as an ABC News election night “analyst” on Tuesday, and want to make sure you are aware of the implications of any association between ABC News and Breitbart’s history of deceptive mudslinging. Breitbart has proven time and again that he is willing to make up stories and smear the names of innocent people in order to draw attention to himself and advance his political causes. By associating with Breitbart, ABC News acknowledges the credibility of his dishonest tactics, and draws its own credibility as a news source into question.

We respect ABC News’ commitment to balanced analysis, and expect that any unbiased news source will seek to provide equal platforms to each side of any debate. However, part of the responsibility of providing balanced news is ensuring that those participating in the debate are approaching the issues honestly and dealing in facts.

Andrew Breitbart, far from dealing in facts, has a long history of fabricating smears in order to advance his own agenda:

  • He famously doctored a recording of Department of Agriculture employee Shirley Sherrod speaking about overcoming racism in order to accuse her of racism. His smear led to Sherrod’s firing, but even more troubling, served to stoke existing racial resentment against the Obama Administration.
  • His pushing of a tape that supposedly showed an ACORN employee helping a pimp and prostitute to establish a brothel helped to drive the smear campaign that eventually brought down the respected community organization. Independent investigations  later found the tapes to be heavily edited and the storyline that Breitbart pushed to be far from the truth. Breitbart’s smear of ACORN helped to propel the right-wing media’s current fixation on the discredited fear of “voter fraud” resulting from minority voting.
  • Breitbart is currently engaged in another fishy media campaign in Alaska, where he has accused a local CBS affiliate of concocting a plot against Senate candidate Joe Miller…but the only evidence he has been able to produce is a fuzzy audio clip that hardly substantiates his claim.

Andrew Breitbart has every right to continue spewing his lies and conspiracy theories on the Internet, but his deceptive “analysis” has no place in an honest debate on an unbiased news program. Even including him in an online feature, as you have now said you will, lends a legitimate platform to his lies. And providing that platform makes ABC News complicit in Breitbart’s deliberate, excuseless smears.

We urge you to reconsider your invitation to Andrew Breitbart before providing a platform to harmful smears and putting your own reputation as a news source at risk.

Sincerely,

Michael B. Keegan.
President, People For the American Way
 

PFAW