Justin's Political Corner

Two foundations that have been described as “the dark money ATM of the right” have spent more than $1 million combined funding a non-profit organization whose primary function is distributing libertarian education materials featuring Fox Business host John Stossel.

Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund, the affiliated funding groups, were until recently obscure entities. But over the past month a series of reports havedetailed how those organizations have paid out more than $400 million to over 1,000 conservative groups since their 1999 founding. Those reports have described how the two organizations have allowed wealthy individuals to discreetly underwrite trending conservative causes likeclimate change denial.

The groups have also been the primary funders behind an effort to flood American classrooms with packaged libertarian lessons branded with John Stossel’s mustachioed face. In 2011, Donors Trust gave $540,000 to the Philadelphia-based Center for Independent Thought (CIT), with the funds earmarked for the distribution of “Stossel in the Classroom” teaching materials, according to IRS filings obtained by Mother Jones. 

“Stossel in the Classroom” began in 1999 when Stossel was still with ABC News. It was seeded with financial support from the libertarian Palmer R. Chitester Fund and grew slowly until CIT took over the program in the mid-2000s.

CIT was a natural home for “Stossel in the Classroom.” Founded with Koch money as the Libertarian Review Foundation in the 1970s, real estate developer Howard Rich took control of the organization in 1990 and gave it its current name. Rich is part of the libertarian donor elite,  founded Americans for Limited Government, and sits on the board at Cato, the Club for Growth, and the Friedman Center for Educational Choice. (Rich’s wife, Andrea, runs CIT, but does not draw a salary.)

At the same time the group took over “Stossel,” new right-wing funding began flowing into its coffers. While Donors Trust was its main sponsor in 2011, it has also received money from Donors Capital Fund ($500,000 from 2007 to 2010) and foundations linked to the Koch brothers.

The purpose of groups like Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund is to allow wealthy benefactors to support conservative causes anonymously. The Tides Foundation is a liberal analogue, donating millions of dollars to left-leaning groups (including Media Matters).  According to Mother Jones, whose non-profit arm has also received Tides funding, “Donors Trust’s strategic intent is far narrower and more coherent than Tides’. The groups funded by Donors Trust more or less pursue the same agenda—eliminate regulations, kneecap unions, shrink government, and transfer more power to the private sector.”

The Center for Public Integrity produced this graphic detailing the flow of money in recent years from Koch-backed and other right-wing foundations through Donors Trust to a variety of conservative groups:

CIT’s funders — whoever they are — will find nothing in their program’s activities to make them question their investment in helping produce the next generation of libertarians.

The new caretakers built a slick new website, archived more videos spanning Stossel’s career, instituted a professional organization of requests and distribution, and began producing specially designed economics DVDs and teaching guides.

The program now offers hundreds of free clips from Stossel’s shows and specials that claim to seriously address a range of academic subjects, including Art (“Why does Hollywood Hate Capitalism?”), Biology (“Debunking Food Myths”), and History (“The Real Story of Thanksgiving,” which explains “how the Pilgrims were hurt by sharing”).

“Stossel in the Classroom” also produces libertarian economics courses. The small team of economists that writes materials such as “Making Economics Come Alive with John Stossel” has multiple close ties to the Stavros Center for the Advancement of Free Enterprise and Economic Education at Florida State University.

The videos on the site are stacked with pundits echoing Stossel’s radical laissez-faire views. A typical lesson pairs videos of Fox Business pundits tearing into a regulatory effort — a video on the 2011 health care law features serial liar Betsy McCaughey and industrial-fan entrepreneur Bob Luddy — with teacher’s guides that ask if government regulation is necessary. 

h/t: MMFA

Dr. Benjamin Carson is the latest in a long line of black conservatives — from Clarence Thomas to Herman Cain — relentlessly promoted and propped up by right-wing voices in the media. After Carson used a speech at the National Prayer Breakfast in front of President Obama to trumpet conservative arguments about economics and health care, News Corp. properties rushed to anoint him as the newest political “star.” Fox News and Fox Business hosted Carson eight times in the days following his speech, and he has been praised by Fox personalities as a courageous leader who is “saving America” and by the Wall Street Journal in an editorial headlined, “Ben Carson For President.” 

At The National Prayer Breakfast, Carson Called For Flat Tax, Conservative Health Care Policy. In his keynote address at the February 7 National Prayer Breakfast — delivered steps from President Obama, who was seated at the head table — Carson made conservative arguments about health care, tax policy, and the national debt. The Atlantic’s David A. Graham wrote:

Carson delivered an opening shot against “political correctness,” and then - after namechecking Tocqueville, recapping his own inspirational life story, and calling for a better education system — voiced concern about the national debt and argued the case for a flat tax, using the Bible’s injunction to tithe a set percentage, and for health-savings accounts, a medical option that hasgained currency among conservatives. Crucially, he delivered this speech from a podium just feet from President Obama, who of course oversaw the passage of a very different health-care plan and has been a major proponent of progressive taxation. Obama, as he often does, remained somewhere between impassive and bored-looking. It’s fair to say he didn’t seem to be enjoying himself. [TheAtlantic.com, 2/19/13] 

Carson Is A Successful Surgeon With A History Of Promoting Conservative Ideas And Supporting Republicans.  Carson was named director of pediatric neurosurgery at the prestigious Johns Hopkins Hospital at age 33, the youngest to ever lead a major division. He received the Presidential Medal of Freedom from President Bush in 2008. A longtime critic of President Obama’s health care law and an avowed creationist, Carson was approached to be the Republican candidate for Maryland lieutenant governor in 2010 and donated $1,000 to Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign in 2012. [Baltimore Sun, 2/18/13; TheAtlantic.com, 2/19/13; OpenSecrets.org, accessed 2/20/13]

TheAtlantic.com’s Graham: “It’s Impossible To Pretend There’s No Racial Dimension Involved In A Successful Black Conservative Castigating The Liberal Black President.” Graham wrote of the conservative movement’s response to the speech:

Though many commentaries have tried tiptoe around it, it’s impossible to pretend there’s no racial dimension involved in a successful black conservative castigating the liberal black president. Black conservatives remain fascinating to Americans of all political persuasions and ethnicities; look no further than Herman Cain’s presidential campaign. And in the age of Obama — when many on the right feel that any criticism of the president is liable to draw undeserved claims of racism — a champion for the cause who can sidestep that retort is sure to be welcomed. Jonah Goldberg came closest to addressing this question, likening Carson to Booker T. Washington. [TheAtlantic.com, 2/19/13]

TheGrio.com’s Joy Reid: “If You Want To Be Ben Carson” Or Any Minority “Willing To Say Conservative Stuff, This Is Your Moment.” In an interview on MSNBC, Reid said that “there is big career advancement” for minorities in being conservative, explaining that they “can make a lot of money, get a lot of attention, get a lot of love from the right, because they really do need brown and black faces to start saying this script.” From the February 13 edition of MSNBC’s The Ed Show:

REID: This is the complication of being a minority conservative.

Right now, first of all, there is a huge boom in it there is a big career advancement in it. If you want to be Ben Carson, Marco Rubio, any brown or black person who is willing to say conservative stuff, this is your moment. You can make a lot of money, get a lot of attention, get a lot of love from the right, because they really do need brown and black faces to start saying this script.

But the problem is in order to fit in as a minority conservative, you really almost have to be even further to the right than typical conservatives. You have to mouth verbatim all of the party`s beliefs, because if you stray one bit, you are held in suspicion. So Rubio is caught in that matrix. [MSNBC’s The Ed Show, 2/13/13, via Nexis]

Wall Street Journal Kicked Off News Corp.’s Cheerleading: ”Ben Carson For President”

The Day After Carson’s Speech, WSJ Urged Readers To ”Make Time To Watch The Video Of Dr. Ben Carson.” The Wall Street Journal published a February 8 editorial headlined, “Ben Carson for President.” The piece encouraged readers “to watch the video of Dr. Ben Carson speaking to the White House prayer breakfast” and highlighted Carson’s ideas on the flat tax and health care. [Wall Street Journal, 2/8/13]

h/t: MMFA

As a TV pro, Roger Ailes is routinely praised in the press for his Midas touch. According to years of fawning coverage, Ailes has an uncanny ability to tap the programming pulse of the public. If that’s true, now would be a good time for him to find his magic stroke because he just signed a contract reportedly worth more than $20 million annually, and two of his most important properties are flailing.

Fox’s latest Nielsen numbers are bad. Really bad. Its worst in 12 years. And early indications are the slump may be part of a larger, systemic problem that could cause bigger headache as fast-climbing MSNBC continues to post gains.

President Obama’s first term proved to be a ratings winner for Fox News as the channel gleefully projected the inner demons of the right wing and marketed itself as the final defender of freedom. Early 2013 indicators though, suggest that ratings cycle may be played out.

Question: Does Ailes the programming guru have a Plan B?

That’s not the Fox chief’s only problem. Ailes also runs Fox Business, whose cable ratings remain anemic, and whose entire audience of 25-54 viewers can often fit inside a hockey arena, despite the fact Fox Business is available in 60 million homes coast to coast.

But that problem pales to the one looming at Fox News. According to Nielsen numbers, not only did MSNBC enjoy big gains in January, but for the Monday-Sunday primetime shows Fox logged its worst ratings since August 2001. (For Monday-Friday primetime, it was Fox’s worst showing since May 2006.) Fox is still the most-watched cable news channel, but the margins are shrinking in a hurry, especially in the coveted 25-54 demo during primetime. (On The Record With Greta Van Susteren appears to be just weeks away from losing the 10 p.m. demo battle  to MSNBC’s The Last Word.)

MSNBC has been able to sustain the ratings growth it enjoyed during the campaign season when viewers flocked to programs for news and information. So why can’t Fox sustain viewers? And if you go back to early 2009 when Obama was inaugurated, Fox News’ ratings didn’t decline in the wake of a Democratic victory like they are now. In 2009, its ratings went up. In fact, Fox News’ first quarter ratings that year skyrocketed. (Sean Hannity’s audience January 2009 grew 69 percent compared to January 2008.)

Four years ago, Obama’s presidency translated into ratings gold for Fox News, aided in part by the arrival of Glenn Beck, the Tea Party and Fox’s full-on embrace of the fringe. Four years later though, that passion seems to have been replaced by indifference.

Or maybe the ratings drop-off stems from hard feelings. Maybe tuned-out Fox viewers feel like they were duped on Election Night. Led by the channel to believe the country suffered a severe case of buyers remorse and would vote Obama office at the first possible opportunity, Fox faithful were forced not only to watch the Democrat post an another election victory, but do it with ease. In other words, almost nothing Fox News had told its aging viewers about the state of the campaign, or about the state of the country, was accurate.

It’s true that Fox viewers have rarely held the channel accountable for the bedrock of information that its programming is built on. (Don’t people watch Fox in order to become misinformed?) But the elaborate election ruse may have been too much for some faithful to take. (Note that in 2008, Fox didn’t bother pretending Sen. John McCain was going to win.) Any lingering resentment could explain why Fox just posted its worst primetime ratings since President George W. Bush’s first summer in the White House.

As for struggling Fox Business, the channel simply continues to flounder. It’s true that its ratings are upmodestly from last year. But when you’re improving on dreadfully weak ratings, modest bumps don’t mean much.

In 2011, when the channel was drawing just 10,000 25-54 viewers a source told AdWeek that when it launched in 2007, channel executives thought they’d be doing “a lot better than” that. Nearly a year and a half later, the story isn’t much better: Fox Business’ target demo audience has edged up to just 14,000 viewers.

And some of the rating for those Fox Business shows are just astounding, especially for the 25-54 demo.According to Nielsen, 16 of the 18 lowest rated shows in all of cable news belong to Fox Business, with several of them attracting fewer than 10,000 viewers aged 25-54.

h/t: MMFA

Fox News “The Five” co-host Eric Bolling is adding to his duties at the network. According to Hal Boedeker at The Orlando Sentinel, Bolling will become the anchor of “Cashin’ In,” one of FNC’s weekend financial shows.

h/t: TVNewser.com

Fox Business host Lou Dobbs pushed the extreme conspiracy theory that President Obama wants to destroy the Second Amendment as a first step in eliminating the entire Bill of Rights. But Obama has consistently voiced his support for the Second Amendment, including during the Monday press conference that Dobbs referenced on his show.

During his program, Dobbs aired a partial clip of Obama saying at the press conference, “The issue here is not whether or not we believe in the Second Amendment. The issue is: Are there some sensible steps that we can take to make sure that somebody like the individual in Newtown can’t walk into a school — “

Dobbs responded by claiming that Obama is “so committed to constraining or dismissing outright our Second Amendment rights, it makes you wonder why he’s not ridding the Constitution of the First Amendment as well.” He later said, “You’ve got to wonder why the president doesn’t double down in his assault on the Constitution, taking on not only the Second, but the First Amendment, the Fourth, the Fourteenth.” Dobbs then suggested that the reason Obama has “begun with the Second Amendment” is because “[w]ithout our rights under the Second Amendment, removing the rest of our Bill of Rights would be a lot easier.”

The context of Obama’s comments clearly shows that Obama was not “dismissing outright” Second Amendment rights. 

In response to a reporter’s question about potential government actions to reduce gun violence, Obama said, in part, “I think that those of us who look at this problem have repeatedly said that responsible gun owners, people who have a gun for protection, for hunting, for sportsmanship, they don’t have anything to worry about.” He also said that he believes we can reduce gun violence “in a sensible way that comports with the Second Amendment.”

And while Obama has not yet outlined specific executive actions he will take to strengthen gun laws, none of the possible executive actions reportedly offered by the Justice Department involve restrictions on weapons that law-abiding Americans may purchase.

From the 01.14.2013 edition of FBN’s Lou Dobbs Tonight:

h/t: MMFA

Fox Business’ Dobbs: “What This Law Changes Is Forced Union Membership. I Repeat: Forced Union Membership.” Discussing Michigan’s new law on the December 11 edition of his Fox Business program, host Lou Dobbs mislead viewers about the effect of right-to-work laws. He claimed that “Michigan workers still tonight have the right to form and join a union. They still have the right to bargain collectively. And what this law changes is forced union membership. I repeat, forced union membership.” [Fox Business, Lou Dobbs Tonight, 12/11/12] 

Maine Center For Economic Policy: “Under Federal Labor Law, Workers Cannot Be Legally Required To Join A Union.” The Maine Center for Economic Policy laid out how forced union membership is illegal in a February 2011 op-ed: “A right-to-work law is not needed to protect nonunion workers. Several federal laws already protect the rights of nonunion employees in unionized workplaces, such as the NLRB vs. General Motors Supreme Court decision in 1963, and the Communication Workers vs. Beck decision of 1988. Under federal labor law, workers cannot be legally required to join a union as part of a collective bargaining contract.” [Maine Center For Economic Policy, 2/19/11]

National Right To Work: “No Employee In The United States Can Legally Be Required” To Be A Full Union Member. Even National Right To Work, an organization that promotes right-to-work laws, acknowledges that forced union membership is already illegal. Informing workers of their rights concerning unions, Right To Work makes clear that “[n]o employee in the United States can legally be required to be a full-dues-paying, formal union member. But in many states, an employee can be forced to pay certain union dues or be fired from his or her job.” [National Right To Work, accessed 12/11/12]

NLRB: Workers That Don’t Want Full Union Membership “Pay Only That Share Of Dues Used Directly For Representation” Of Union Contract They Work Under. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) explains that workers do not have to be full union members, but instead must only pay for the union representation they receive by working at a union shop, regardless of their membership status. The NLRB says that “employees who object to full union membership may continue as ‘core’ members and pay only that share of dues used directly for representation, such as collective bargaining and contract administration. Known as objectors, they are no longer full members but are still protected by the union contract.” NLRB also notes that right-to-work states allow non-union members to pay nothing, “even though all workers are protected by the collective bargaining agreement negotiated by the union.” [National Labor Relations Board, accessed 12/11/12]

Center For American Progress: “Right-To-Work” Laws “Allow Some Workers To Receive A Free Ride.”A Center for American Progress report titled “Right-to-Work 101” explained that “right-to-work” laws simply “allow some workers to receive a free ride” by receiving benefits from a union contract without having to pay for it:

In states where the law exists, “right-to-work” makes it illegal for workers and employers to negotiate a contract requiring everyone who benefits from a union contract to pay their fair share of the costs of administering it. Right-to-work has nothing to do with people being forced to be union members.

Federal law already guarantees that no one can be forced to be a member of a union, or to pay any amount of dues or fees to a political or social cause they don’t support. What right-to-work laws do is allow some workers to receive a free ride, getting the advantages of a union contract — such as higher wages and benefits and protection against arbitrary discipline — without paying any fee associated with negotiating on these matters.

That’s because the union must represent all workers with the same due diligence regardless of whether they join the union or pay it dues or other fees and a union contract must cover all workers, again regardless of their membership in or financial support for the union. In states without right-to-work laws, workers covered by a union contract can refuse union membership and pay a fee covering only the costs of workplace bargaining rather than the full cost of dues. [Center for American Progress Action Fund, 2/2/12]

From the 12.11.2012 edition of FBN’s Lou Dobbs Tonight:

H/T: MMFA

Varney: “Big Bird Would Still Be Around Because It’s A Profit Center In And Of Itself.” Discussing Mitt Romney’s statement during the October 3 presidential debate that he would “stop the subsidy to PBS” if elected, host Stuart Varney claimed that the government spends $444 million a year on public broadcasting, adding, “If we took that subsidy away, Big Bird would still be around because it’s a profit center in and of itself.”  Varney later said, “If we take it away, Sesame Street, Big Bird stands, profitable.” [Fox Business, Varney & Co., 10/4/12]

Fox Guest Carol Roth: PBS Can Make Up For Lack Of Government Funding By Bringing In Sponsors, Advertisers, Or Subscribers. Responding to Varney, guest Carol Roth said: “You can bring in corporate sponsors, you can bring in advertisers. Look, HBO is a great station, they do it by subscribers. There are other ways for PBS to remain.” [Fox Business, Varney and Co., 10/4/12]

Sesame Street Producer “Receives Very, Very Little Funding From PBS.” Sherrie Westin, executive vice president and chief marketing officer for Sesame Workshop, which produces Sesame Street, told CNN: “Sesame Workshop receives very, very little funding from PBS. So, we are able to raise our funding through philanthropic, through our licensed product, which goes back into the educational programming, through corporate underwriting and sponsorship. So quite frankly, you can debate whether or not there should be funding of public broadcasting. But when they always try to tout out Big Bird, and say we’re going to kill Big Bird — that is actually misleading, because Sesame Street will be here.” [CNN, Starting Point, 10/4/12]

From the 10.04.2012 edition of FBN’s Varney and Co.:

h/t: MMFA