Members of the Senate Education Committee, I Am Writing to Express

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Members of the Senate Education Committee, I am writing to express my grave concerns about Senate Bill 437 and ask that you DO NOT pass this legislation. Senate Bill 437 which would give Education Savings Accounts to "qualified" children, is a bill that should have never made it to the Ways and Means Committee. It is a terrible idea that will further weaken our public schools. This basically falls in line with Betsy DeVos’ ideas for the elimination of our public schools by funding corporate privatization of education through “charter” schools, vouchers, etc.... As we have seen in many states, charter schools have been an abysmal failure which have led to further inequities and the segregation of our children. FOLLOW the MONEY... Who supports this idea? Kathryn Hickok and Steve Buckstein who are employed by the Cascade Policy Institute (CPI). According to the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD), CPI is an Oregon-based think tank and member of the State Policy Network (SPN). From CMD: The State Policy Network (SPN) has franchised, funded, and fostered a growing number of “mini Heritage Foundations” at the state level since the early 1990s.[1] SPN is a web of right-wing “think tanks” in every state across the country. It is an $83 million right-wing empire as of the 2011 funding documents from SPN itself and each of its state "think tank" members. Although SPN's member organizations claim to be nonpartisan and independent, the Center for Media and Democracy's in-depth investigation, "EXPOSED: The State Policy Network -- The Powerful Right-Wing Network Helping to Hijack State Politics and Government," reveals that SPN and its member think tanks are major drivers of the right-wing, American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)-backed corporate agenda in state houses nationwide, with deep ties to the Koch brothers and the national right-wing network of funders. SB437 is sponsored by Republican Ted Ferrioli. Let him know that Oregon citizens will not tolerate ALEC legislation or its perpetrators. His duty is to the people of this state, not to the Koch billionaires. Sincerely, Catherine Carroll .

Copy Link

Recommended publications

Culture Wars' Reloaded: Trump, Anti-Political Correctness and the Right's 'Free Speech' Hypocrisy
The 'Culture Wars' Reloaded: Trump, Anti-Political Correctness and the Right's 'Free Speech' Hypocrisy Dr. Valerie Scatamburlo-D'Annibale University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario, Canada Abstract This article explores how Donald Trump capitalized on the right's decades-long, carefully choreographed and well-financed campaign against political correctness in relation to the broader strategy of 'cultural conservatism.' It provides an historical overview of various iterations of this campaign, discusses the mainstream media's complicity in promulgating conservative talking points about higher education at the height of the 1990s 'culture wars,' examines the reconfigured anti- PC/pro-free speech crusade of recent years, its contemporary currency in the Trump era and the implications for academia and educational policy. Keywords: political correctness, culture wars, free speech, cultural conservatism, critical pedagogy Introduction More than two years after Donald Trump's ascendancy to the White House, post-mortems of the 2016 American election continue to explore the factors that propelled him to office. Some have pointed to the spread of right-wing populism in the aftermath of the 2008 global financial crisis that culminated in Brexit in Europe and Trump's victory (Kagarlitsky, 2017; Tufts & Thomas, 2017) while Fuchs (2018) lays bare the deleterious role of social media in facilitating the rise of authoritarianism in the U.S. and elsewhere. Other 69 | P a g e The 'Culture Wars' Reloaded: Trump, Anti-Political Correctness and the Right's 'Free Speech' Hypocrisy explanations refer to deep-rooted misogyny that worked against Hillary Clinton (Wilz, 2016), a backlash against Barack Obama, sedimented racism and the demonization of diversity as a public good (Major, Blodorn and Blascovich, 2016; Shafer, 2017).
[Show full text]
Groups to Watch
Groups to watch There is no question that conservative foundations and think tanks will put an increased emphasis on attacking public sector unions and public schools after the Supreme Court makes its decision in the Janus v. AFSCME case. They are already spending hundreds of millions of dollars across the nation to elect anti-labor and anti-public education candidates and to produce so-called "research," television ads and mailings to bash unions. The Koch network alone plans to spend $400 million this year.1 Virtually all of these organizations aren't required to report their donors. These groups try to bill themselves as pro-worker – they are not. They want to privatize our public schools, lower taxes for corporations and the wealthy, block access to health care, cut pensions, suppress voters, gerrymander and weaken the political power of unions. The tentacles of all of these group are already reaching into Minnesota, advocating for vouchers, more charter schools, defined-contribution pensions and the destruction of public employee unions. State Policy N etwork The State Policy Network (SPN) is a web of so-called “think tanks” that push a right-wing agenda in every state across the country, all while reporting little or no lobbying activities. The $80 million empire2 works to rig the system against working families by pushing for privatizing public schools, blocking expanded access to health care, lowering taxes for corporations and the very wealthy and undermining workers’ rights and unions. SPN and many of its affiliates are members of the controversial American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), where corporate lobbyists and special interest group representatives vote as equals with state lawmakers behind closed doors on “model” legislation that in many cases ends up benefiting the corporations’ bottom line.
[Show full text]
America's Other Election
America’s Other Election Gary Gerstle It is time we reckoned with the cost of the country’s Trump obsession—not simply in distorting politics at the national level but in taking our gaze away from what is going on in the states. There, another election is being held in November and then another in 2018, and the stakes are high. Democrats and Republicans are vying to turn as many states as possible to their par- tisan advantage. Barring a collapse of the Trump campaign, Republicans stand to win many more of these contests than Democrats. 2016 States have again become what U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis ALL F Brandeis once called them almost a hundred years ago—laboratories of · T democracy. Battles on significant issues are being fought out within their borders: whether or not to legalize marijuana; whether or not to raise the issen D minimum wage; what restrictions can be placed on a woman’s right to an abortion; whether to preserve or curtail the collective bargaining rights of public-sector employees; whether or not transgender people will be allowed to use the bathroom of their chosen gender; whether small business own- ers must serve gay customers; how to reconfigure the electorate in terms of districting and protection (or lack thereof) of minority voting rights; whether or not states and cities should tax sugar and other substances harmful to health. That these battles are being waged with such intensity reflects the his- toric importance of the states in the American federal system. The federal government and the Supreme Court, in particular, reined in states’ rights in the 1960s, as part of their campaign to insure that minorities and women had full access to the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution.
[Show full text]
A Case Study in Detroit
education policy analysis archives A peer-reviewed, independent, open access, multilingual journal Arizona State University Volume 29 Number 21 February 22, 2021 ISSN 1068-2341 How does Teach For America Engage Its Alumni Politically? A Case Study in Detroit 1 Jeremy Singer Wayne State University United States & T. Jameson Brewer University of North Georgia United States Citation: Singer, J., & Brewer, T. J. (2021). How does Teach For America engage its alumni politically? A case study in Detroit. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 29(21). https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.29.5943 Abstract: We describe the alumni engagement efforts by Teach For America (TFA) in Detroit as a case study of the specific ways that the organization works to influence its alumni’s involvement in educational politics and disposition towards particular types of educational reform. During the 2019-20 school year, TFA Detroit facilitated a series of “policy 1Statement of financial disclosure: As a graduate research assistant at Wayne State University, Jeremy Singer is partially funded by and supports research projects that are partially funded by a grant from the Skillman Foundation. Journal website: http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/ Manuscript received: 8/31/2020 Facebook: /EPAAA Revisions received: 12/3/2020 Twitter: @epaa_aape Accepted: 12/4/2020 Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 29 No. 21 2 workshops” for its alumni, intended to inspire TFA corps members and alumni to engage in political and policy advocacy. Combining field notes and other artifacts from the policy workshops with a social network analysis of the featured participants and central organizations, we show that TFA Detroit drew upon its local, state, and national policy networks to construct workshops that in turn would politically mobilize alumni to support their networks’ preferred city and state policies and reforms.
[Show full text]
Threat from the Right Intensifies
THREAT FROM THE RIGHT INTENSIFIES May 2018 Contents Introduction ..................................................................................................................1 Meeting the Privatization Players ..............................................................................3 Education Privatization Players .....................................................................................................7 Massachusetts Parents United ...................................................................................................11 Creeping Privatization through Takeover Zone Models .............................................................14 Funding the Privatization Movement ..........................................................................................17 Charter Backers Broaden Support to Embrace Personalized Learning ....................................21 National Donors as Longtime Players in Massachusetts ...........................................................25 The Pioneer Institute ....................................................................................................................29 Profits or Professionals? Tech Products Threaten the Future of Teaching ....... 35 Personalized Profits: The Market Potential of Educational Technology Tools ..........................39 State-Funded Personalized Push in Massachusetts: MAPLE and LearnLaunch ....................40 Who’s Behind the MAPLE/LearnLaunch Collaboration? ...........................................................42 Gates
[Show full text]
How Right Wing Funders Are Manufacturing News and Influencing Public Policy in Pennsylvania
Driving the News How right wing funders are manufacturing news and influencing public policy in Pennsylvania A Report by Keystone Progress August, 2013 This report was produced by Keystone Progress. Keystone Progress is Pennsylvania’s largest progressive advocacy organization with over 350,000 subscribers. Keystone Progress embraces a pragmatic and flexible approach to advancing equal opportunity for all, the protection of individual freedoms, and democratic, transparent and people-oriented (rather than corporate) government. We support every worker’s right to organize and earn a living wage, every individual’s right to control their reproductive health options, every child’s right to public education, and every human being’s right to breathe clean air, drink clean water, and access adequate health care, food and shelter. [email protected] 610-990-6300 2 Executive Summary There is a disturbing new movement to supplant genuine investigative reporting with pseudo-reporting by right-wing advocacy organizations. These advocacy groups, posing as legitimate news bureaus, are well funded and have become accepted as objective news organizations by many mainstream newspapers, television and radio news operations. In fact, one such network claims that it is already "provides 10 percent of all daily reporting from state capitals nationwide."i This insidious infiltration of legitimate news operations is led by the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity. Its local affiliate in Pennsylvania is the Pennsylvania Independent. Key Findings . Despite its claims, the Pennsylvania Independent is far from being independent or unbiased. The Pennsylvania Independent is run by the far-right Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity, which has close ties to the American Legislative Exchange Council, the Koch brothers, the Tea Party, the Conservative Political Action Conference, the Heritage Foundation and numerous other conservative causes and candidates.
[Show full text]
EXPOSED:The State Policy Network
EXPOSED: The State Policy Network The Powerful Right-Wing Network Helping to Hijack State Politics and Government CENTER FOR MEDIA AND DEMOCRACY | ALECEXPOSED.ORG November 2013 ©2013 Center for Media and Democracy. All rights reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photography, recording, or by information exchange and retrieval system, without permission from the authors. Center for Media and Democracy ALECexposed.org | PRWatch.org | SourceWatch.org 520 University Avenue, Suite 260 Madison, WI 53703 | (608) 260-9713 (This publication is available online at ALECexposed.org) CMD, publisher of ALECexposed.org, PRWatch.org, and SourceWatch.org, has created a clearinghouse of information on the State Policy Network at sourcewatch.org/index.php/Portal:State_Policy_Network and a reporter’s guide to SPN at prwatch.org/node/11909/. Please see these online resources for more information. This report was written by Rebekah Wilce, with contributions by Lisa Graves, Mary Bottari, Nick Surgey, Jay Riestenberg, Katie Lorenze, Drew Curtis, and Sari Williams. This report on SPN is also part of a joint effort with Progress Now called www.StinkTanks.org, which includes information about what citizens can do in response to SPN's secretive influence on the state laws that affect their lives. Contents Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1 SPN’s Founding and Role in the National Right-Wing
[Show full text]
Target San Diego
Target San Diego The Right Wing Assault on Urban Democracy and Smart Government Lee Cokorinos Target San Diego The Right Wing Assault on Urban Democracy and Smart Government A Report for the Center on Policy Initiatives Lee Cokorinos November 2005 Table of Contents Acknowledgments . ii Foreword . iii Executive Summary . v Introduction: The National Significance of the Battle for San Diego . 1 1. The National Context: Key Organizations Leading the Right’s Assault on the States and Cities . 5 A. The American Legislative Exchange Council . 7 B. The State Policy Network . 13 C. The Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy . 17 D. The Pacific Research Institute . 21 E. Americans for Tax Reform and the Project for California’s Future . 25 F. The Reason Foundation . 33 2. The Performance Institute and the Assault on San Diego . 39 3. The Battle for America’s Cities: A National Engagement . 49 Endnotes . 57 I ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Acknowledgments This report was made possible through the generous support of the New World Foundation. Special thanks go to Colin Greer and Ann Bastian of New World for their leadership in fostering the movement for progressive renewal. Thanks also to Donald Cohen of the Center on Policy Initiatives for contributing keen insights and the benefit of his ground level experience at engaging the right at every step of the research and writing, to Murtaza Baxamusa of CPI for sharing his expertise, and to veteran political researcher Jerry Sloan for his valuable advice. Jerry’s decades of research on the California and the national right have educated a generation of activists.
[Show full text]
SSN Key Findings Hertel-Fernandez and Skocpol on the GOP Civil War Over Medicaid Expansion
THE GOP CIVIL WAR OVER MEDICAID EXPANSION IN THE STATES by Alexander Hertel-Fernandez and Theda Skocpol, Harvard University The Affordable Care Act (also known as “ObamaCare”) funds the expansion of Medicaid in the states to include people just above the official poverty line. Although the architects of the original health reform law enacted in 2010 assumed that all states would participate in this expansion, the June 2012 Supreme Court decision upholding most of the law left states free to refuse the expansion without losing existing Medicaid funding. This turned the Medicaid expansion into a major political battle. Most Democratic-run states endorsed expansion quickly, but states with Republicans partially or fully in control have experienced fights pitting business associations that often favor accepting new federal Medicaid funding against ideological conservative groups determined to block all aspects of health reform implementation. As of fall 2015, twenty GOP-run or influenced states had not adopted expansion. Our research uses statistical models and case studies to explain state choices. We examine both endorsements by governors and official decisions about expansion, usually through enactments or defeats in state legislatures. Why Many GOP Governors and Business Groups Have Embraced Expansion Even in very conservative states, Medicaid expansion has often been supported by business groups and governors. By law, the federal government pays all costs for the first three years, and 90% of costs in 2020 and beyond. By accepting expansion, states receive millions to billions of dollars helpful to health care businesses, state budgets, and overall economic activity. In addition, hospitals and other medical care providers have extra incentives to support Medicaid expansion because, in the expectation that most low-income patients would gain coverage, the 2010 law gradually reduces payments to providers serving large shares of the uninsured.
[Show full text]
Groups to Watch
Groups to watch There is no question that conservative foundations and think tanks will put an increased emphasis on attacking public sector unions and public schools after the Supreme Court makes its decision in the Janus v. AFSCME case. They are already spending hundreds of millions of dollars across the nation to elect anti-labor and anti-public education candidates and to produce so-called "research," television ads and mailings to bash unions. The Koch network alone plans to spend $400 million this year.1 Virtually all of these organizations aren't required to report their donors. These groups try to bill themselves as pro-worker – they are not. They want to privatize our public schools, lower taxes for corporations and the wealthy, block access to health care, cut pensions, suppress voters, gerrymander and weaken the political power of unions. The tentacles of all of these group are already reaching into Minnesota, advocating for vouchers, more charter schools, defined-contribution pensions and the destruction of public employee unions. State Policy Network The State Policy Network (SPN) is a web of so-called “think tanks” that push a right-wing agenda in every state across the country, all while reporting little or no lobbying activities. The $80 million empire2 works to rig the system against working families by pushing for privatizing public schools, blocking expanded access to health care, lowering taxes for corporations and the very wealthy and undermining workers’ rights and unions. SPN and many of its affiliates are members of the controversial American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), where corporate lobbyists and special interest group representatives vote as equals with state lawmakers behind closed doors on “model” legislation that in many cases ends up benefiting the corporations’ bottom line.
[Show full text]
Corruption Consultants Conservative Special Interests and Corporations Hurt State Economies and Democratic Processes
GETTY/NICHOLAS KAMM Corruption Consultants Conservative Special Interests and Corporations Hurt State Economies and Democratic Processes By Malkie Wall, Danielle Root, and Andrew Schwartz July, 2019 WWW.AMERICANPROGRESS.ORG Corruption Consultants Conservative Special Interests and Corporations Hurt State Economies and Democratic Processes By Malkie Wall, Danielle Root, and Andrew Schwartz July, 2019 Contents 1 Introduction and summary 6 Economic policies driven by special interests 14 Efforts to undermine democracy 21 The spread of dangerous policies across states and at the federal level 24 Recommendations 27 Conclusion 27 About the authors 28 Endnotes Introduction and summary Federalism encourages states to act as “laboratories of democracy,” wherein states experiment with untested ideas and policies to gauge their effectiveness and potential value elsewhere, including at the federal level.1 Over the decades, state-level innova- tions have made dramatic improvements in the lives of millions of people in the areas of social insurance, child labor protections, and health care reform. States continue to take up the mantle of innovation by experimenting with various economic and election-related policies.2 However, this mantle of states being laboratories of democracy has not always been used for the public good. Unfortunately, states can also be used as a testing ground for policies that skew political and economic power toward corporations or billion- aires and away from everyday Americans. In too many states, this is precisely what is happening today. Across the country, conservative lawmakers are adopting policies that make corpo- rations and billionaires richer while hurting American families. These legislators are accomplishing this by implementing irresponsible tax cuts, depriving governments of revenue for public goods and services, and making communities and workplaces less safe through deregulation and attacks on unions.
[Show full text]
The Koch Network and Republican Party Extremism Theda Skocpol and Alexander Hertel-Fernandez
Articles The Koch Network and Republican Party Extremism Theda Skocpol and Alexander Hertel-Fernandez Presidential election years attract attention to the rhetoric, personalities, and agendas of contending White House aspirants, but these headlines do not reﬂect the ongoing political shifts that will confront whoever moves into the White House in 2017. Earthquakes and erosions have remade the U.S. political terrain, reconﬁguring the ground on which politicians and social groups must maneuver, and it is important to make sure that narrow and short-term analyses do not blind us to this shifting terrain. We draw from research on changes since 2000 in the organizational universes surrounding the Republican and Democratic parties to highlight a major emergent force in U.S. politics: the recently expanded “Koch network” that coordinates big money funders, idea producers, issue advocates, and innovative constituency-building efforts in an ongoing effort to pull the Republican Party and agendas of U.S. politics sharply to the right. We review the major components and evolution of the Koch network and explore how it has reshaped American politics and policy agendas, focusing especially on implications for right-tilted partisan polarization and rising economic inequality. he Republican Party has become ... ideologi- legitimacy of its political opposition.”1 This startling “T cally extreme; contemptuous of the inherited description appeared not in a broadside issued by the social and economic policy regime; scornful of Democratic National Committee but in a wonkish 2012 compromise; unpersuaded by conventional understanding book, It’s Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American of facts, evidence, and science; and dismissive of the Constitutional System Collided with the New Politics of Extremism, co-authored by two sober-minded analysts of different personal political persuasions, Thomas Mann A list of supplementary materials provided by the authors and Norman Ornstein.
[Show full text]