To illustrate, pretend your girlfriend stars in a well-reviewed movie as a superhero. You are proud of her for landing this role and playing the part of a strong woman leader. Then, you read a review about the movie where the critic salaciously refers to your girlfriend as a “fighting fuck toy,” after describing certain of her body parts in glowing detail. Or, pretend your mother has run for office and become Senator. After she’s served for a while, you begin to notice that most news outlets report that Mrs. Anderson (not Senator) “complained,” while her male counterparts merely “stated” their opposition. You will recall that during their campaigns, Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin were often painted as “bitch” or “ditz,” and there was much discussion about their wardrobes.
The special committee must report a bill with its recommendations by November 23, 2011. The recommendations would then have to be voted on by the full House and Senate under special rules. If the joint committee or Congress fail to act by December 23, 2011, the Act calls for automatic across-the-board cuts, split 50-50 between defense and non-defense spending.
The decision appears to have been made in response to calls for election oversight following multiple reports of alleged ballot tampering in October by an independent group supporting interim mayor Ed Lee. The voter fraud allegations has triggered a preliminary investigation by District Attorney George Gascón.
According to an ethics complaint filed today, the Ed Lee campaign distributed two sets of illegal door-hangers over the weekend. The door-hangers, which were paid for by the Ed Lee for Mayor 2011 campaign, allegedly contained YES and NO endorsements for several measures on the November ballot.
While candidates for office may endorse ballot initiatives and appear on literature funded by ballot measure committees, ethic laws strictly prohibit candidates from using funds raised by their candidate committees to support or oppose ballot measures.
In addition to thousands of dollars worth of equipment stolen from the office located at 1800 Van Ness Ave, the thieves refiled through confidential campaign materials.
Table 1 includes all groups that have conducted independent spending (sometimes called “soft money” or “third party expenditures”) supporting or opposing candidates or measures. Table 2 includes all the committees primarily formed to support or oppose measures on the 2011 ballot.
Readers may be particularly interested to see which donors repeatedly showed up in the tables, as well as which donors are themselves also independent groups spending directly on election advocacy communications to the voters.
Now how often have we seen both parties agree on anything? Yet Democrats supported it as preventative care and Republicans liked its low cost. It was killed in committee, however, decimated by three powerful interest groups. Who were these lobbyists who wanted no part of incentives for us to gravitate toward a healthier lifestyle, with all the benefits of lowered medical costs and improved vitality?
They were the American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society and the American Diabetes Association.
Recent Comments