The-Progressive-Advantage.Pdf
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
The Transgender-Industrial Complex
The Transgender-Industrial Complex THE TRANSGENDER– INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX Scott Howard Antelope Hill Publishing Copyright © 2020 Scott Howard First printing 2020. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be copied, besides select portions for quotation, without the consent of its author. Cover art by sswifty Edited by Margaret Bauer The author can be contacted at [email protected] Twitter: @HottScottHoward The publisher can be contacted at Antelopehillpublishing.com Paperback ISBN: 978-1-953730-41-1 ebook ISBN: 978-1-953730-42-8 “It’s the rush that the cockroaches get at the end of the world.” -Every Time I Die, “Ebolarama” Contents Introduction 1. All My Friends Are Going Trans 2. The Gaslight Anthem 3. Sex (Education) as a Weapon 4. Drag Me to Hell 5. The She-Male Gaze 6. What’s Love Got to Do With It? 7. Climate of Queer 8. Transforming Our World 9. Case Studies: Ireland and South Africa 10. Networks and Frameworks 11. Boas Constrictor 12. The Emperor’s New Penis 13. TERF Wars 14. Case Study: Cruel Britannia 15. Men Are From Mars, Women Have a Penis 16. Transgender, Inc. 17. Gross Domestic Products 18. Trans America: World Police 19. 50 Shades of Gay, Starring the United Nations Conclusion Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Introduction “Men who get their periods are men. Men who get pregnant and give birth are men.” The official American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Twitter account November 19th, 2019 At this point, it is safe to say that we are through the looking glass. The volume at which all things “trans” -
Democracy Alliance Does America: the Soros-Founded Plutocrats’ Club Forms State Chapters by Matthew Vadum and James Dellinger
The Democracy Alliance Does America: The Soros-Founded Plutocrats’ Club Forms State Chapters By Matthew Vadum and James Dellinger (Editor’s note: This special report on the Democracy Alliance updates our January 2008 and December 2006 issues of Foun- dation Watch.) Summary: Four years ago the Democratic Party was in disarray after failing to reclaim the White House and Congress despite re- cord contributions by high-dollar donors. George Soros and other wealthy liberals decided they had the answer to the party’s problems. They formed a secretive donors’ collaborative to fund a permanent political infrastructure of nonprofi t think tanks, me- dia outlets, leadership schools, and activ- ist groups to compete with the conservative movement. Called the Democracy Alliance (DA), Soros and his colleagues put their im- primatur on the party and the progressive movement by steering hundreds of millions of dollars to liberal nonprofi ts they favored. The Democracy Alliance helped Democrats Democracy Alliance fi nancier George Soros spoofed: This is a screen grab from the give Republicans a shellacking in Novem- Oct. 4 “Saturday Night Live.” In front row from left to right, Kristen Wiig as House ber. Now it’s organizing state-level chapters Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Will Forte as Soros, and Fred Armisen as Rep. Barney Frank. in at least 19 states, and once-conservative could weaken the resolve of self-styled “pro- D.C., according to Marc Ambinder of the Colorado, which hosts the Democracy Al- gressives.” They worry that complacency Atlantic. It’s safe to say they are planning liance’s most successful state affi liate, has and fatalism threaten the progressive sense their next moves. -
Agenda Setting: a Wise Giver's Guide to Influencing Public Policy
AGENDA SETTING MILLER Agenda Setting A Wise Giver’s Guide to Influencing Public Policy Donating money to modify public thinking and government policy has now taken its place next to service-centered giving as a constructive branch of philanthropy. Many donors now view public-policy reform as a necessary adjunct to their efforts to improve lives directly. This is perhaps inevitable given the mushrooming presence of government in our lives. In 1930, just 12 percent of U.S. GDP was consumed by government; by 2012 that had tripled to 36 percent. Unless and until that expansion of the state reverses, it is unrealistic to expect the philanthropic sector to stop trying to have a say in public policies. Sometimes it’s not enough to build a house of worship; one must create policies that make it possible for people to practice their faith freely within society. Sometimes it’s not enough to pay for a scholarship; one must change laws so that high-quality schools exist for scholarship recipients to take advantage of. Yet public-policy philanthropy has special ways of mystifying and frustrating practitioners. It requires understanding of governmental practice, interpretation of human nature, and some philosophical perspective. Public-policy philanthropists may encounter opponents operating from different principles who view them as outright enemies. Moreover, public-policy struggles never seem to end: victories and ZINSMEISTER and ZINSMEISTER one year become defeats the next, followed by comebacks, then setbacks, and on and on. This book was written to help donors navigate all of those obstacles. It draws Agenda on deep history, and rich interviews with the very best practitioners of public- policy philanthropy in America today. -
Soft Money in the 2006 Election and the Outlook for 2008
Soft Money in the 2006 Election and the Outlook for 2008 The Changing Nonprofits Landscape A CFI Report By Stephen R. Weissman and Kara D. Ryan This is the first in a series of papers to be published by the Campaign Finance Institute analyzing important developments in the role of money and politics in the 2006 midterm elections and their implications for 2008. Future papers will include one on the political parties and one on small and large donors. The Campaign Finance Institute is a non-partisan, non-profit institute, affiliated with The George Washington University, that conducts objective research and education, empanels task forces and makes recommendations for policy change in the field of campaign finance. Statements of the Campaign Finance Institute and its Task Forces do not necessarily reflect the views of CFI’s Trustees or financial supporters. For further information, visit the CFI web site at www.CampaignFinanceInstitute.org. For Additional Copies: Campaign Finance Institute 1990 M Street NW, Suite 380 Washington, DC 20036 202-969-8890 www.CampaignFinanceInstitute.org Soft Money in the 2008 Election www.CFInst.org ©2007 The Campaign Finance Institute Table of Contents Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 1 527s……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 1 The FEC’s Rulings Limit Certain 527s ……………………………………………….. 3 501(c)(4)s, (c)(5)s, and (c)(6)s ……………………………………………………….. 6 501(c)s Undertaking “Issue” Campaigns with Strong Electoral Overtones ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 10 “Taxable” Self-Declared or Defacto Nonprofits .............................. 12 Election 2008: A World of Multiple Political Choices for Interest Groups and Donors ……………………………………………………………………………. 14 A Policy Conversation that Needs to Happen ………………………………….… 16 Sources for Discussion of 527 Groups ……………………………………….……. -
Supplemental Materials “Open Letter To
MONEY IN POLITICS 2009: NEW HORIZONS FOR REFORM Supplemental Materials “Open Letter to Democratic Representatives From Democratic Donors Regarding the Fair Elections Now Act,” May 6, 2009. “Deep-pocketed donors want campaign finance reform,” Mark Preston, CNN.com, May 5, 2009. “Banks Think They "Own" Congress? Wrong -- We're Taking Congress Back,” Lawrence Lessig, The Huffington Post, May 5, 2009. “Mayday, Mayday at the Federal Election Commission: A Report on the Unprecedented Campaign by the Republican FEC Commissioners to Shut Down Enforcement of the Campaign Finance Laws,” Fred Wertheimer, May 1, 2009. “Deadlock on the Federal Election Commission” – a Letter to President Barack Obama from by David Arkush and Craig Holman, April 30, 2009. “Reforming Pay-to-Play Politics,” Sam Waterston, The Boston Globe, April 30, 2009. “Reform Groups Strongly Praise President Obama’s Government Integrity Reform Measures during First Hundred Days,” Statement Issued by Common Cause, Democracy 21, League of Women Voters, Public Citizen and U.S. PIRG, April 28, 2009. “Fair Elections Now!” Nick Nyhart & David Donnelly, The Nation, April 13, 2009. “News Flash: Greed and Stupidity Can Coexist!” Monica Youn, The Huffington Post, April 7, 2009. “Political Spending by Publicly Funded Entities” – a Letter to Elizabeth Warren from the Brennan Center for Justice, March 30, 2009. “A Brewing Court Battle,” Michael Waldman, Newsweek, Mar. 23, 2009. “Will Courts Allow More Transparency?” Laura MacCleery, Politico, Feb. 25, 2009. “Illinois has much to teach Pa.,” Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, The Philadelphia Inquirer, Feb. 25, 2009 “Auction Block Politics,” Laura MacCleery, The Huffington Post, Dec. 18, 2008. “Back to the Future for the RNC,” Laura MacCleery, The Nation.com, Dec. -
BEFORE the FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Campaign Legal
BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Campaign Legal Center Trevor Potter, President and General Counsel Kirk L. Jowers, Deputy General Counsel 1640 Rhode Island Ave. NW, Suite 650 Washington, DC 20036 202-736-2200 v. MUR No. ________ New Democrat Network 777 North Capitol Street NE, Suite 410 Washington, DC 20002 COMPLAINT 1. In March, 2002, Congress enacted the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) in order to stop the raising and spending of soft money to influence federal elections. The relevant provisions of BCRA were upheld by the Supreme Court in McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 39, 124 S.Ct. 619 (2003). 2. Since the enactment of the BCRA, a number of political and party operatives have been engaged in illegal new schemes to use soft money to influence the 2004 presidential and congressional elections. These schemes, for the most part, involve the use of so-called “section 527 groups”—entities registered as “political organizations” under section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 527—as vehicles to raise and spend soft money to influence the 2004 federal elections. 3. These schemes to inject soft money into the 2004 federal elections are illegal. The Supreme Court in McConnell took specific note of “the hard lesson of circumvention” that is taught “by the entire history of campaign finance regulation.” 124 S.Ct. at 673. The deployment 2 of “section 527 groups” as the new vehicle for using soft money to conduct partisan activities to influence federal elections is simply the latest chapter in the long history of efforts to evade and violate the federal campaign finance laws.