Tim Canova Guest Post On Wasserman Schultz's Slimy Relationship With Big Sugar And A Poisoned Environment

There are several crucial congressional primaries left, particularly in Florida at the very end of August. Two of the hottest are Grayson's Senate run against spoiled and soiled Patrick Murphy and Tim Canova's against as-bad-as-Murphy degenerate #DebtTrapDebbie Wasserman Schultz. Both are on August 30. If Grayson beats Murphy he'll face Marco Rubio in November and if Canova beats #DebTrap he's the de fact congressman from South Broward County and Miami Beach (FL-23). Below is a guest post from Tim, Debbie Wasserman Schultz Has a Sweet Tooth and It’s No Laughing Matter, and I want to urge you to read it all the way through and then come back up here and consider contributing to both his and Grayson's campaigns by tapping the thermometer on the right.

My opponent, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, doesn’t want you to know that she is part of the problem. She says that any criticism of her environmental record is “laughable.” She wants you to believe that only Republicans like Florida Gov. Rick Scott are really to blame for the toxic algae bloom which has left a swath of bacteria, disease, and death in its path from Lake Okeechobee all the way to the Florida coastlines. I visited the Saint Lucie River and Estuary last weekend and I was sickened by what I saw. Manatees and fish stranded in the filth, gasping for air and dying. It’s no laughing matter at all and neither is Wasserman Schultz’s record.

Unfortunately, Wasserman Schultz’s response to the crisis is to divert attention and blame to others. She doesn’t want voters to see that she’s been taking lots of campaign contributions from the Big Sugar companies and other agribusinesses that have created this environmental crisis by polluting Lake Okeechobee with chemical fertilizers, particularly phosphorous and nitrates, and pesticides. Nor does she want us to know that she has voted for huge subsidies for the sugar industry and other agribusinesses, as well as for delays in cleanups, while failing to deliver federal funds for any real solution.

Big Money from Big Sugar and Agribusinesses

Let’s start with the campaign contributions from Big Sugar that have flowed for years to Wasserman Schultz, Rick Scott, and so many other Florida politicians, Republicans and Democrats alike. As of her most recent FEC filing, the largest corporate donor to Wasserman Schultz’s campaign was the Fanjul Corporation, a massive, multinational sugar empire that has been repeatedly linked to exploitative labor practices characterized as “modern-day slavery.”

Actually, Wasserman Schultz has taken over $133,000 from Big Sugar companies in the past eight years, with those donations increasing dramatically over time, from $6000 in 2004 to $20,200 to date for the 2016 cycle. In this election cycle, she has so far taken $38,900 from the Agribusiness industry, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

And it’s not like Wasserman Schultz has even needed all this money. Prior to this year, she had never been challenged in a primary, while running in a safely Democratic district. Perhaps she has helped steer Big Sugar money to other members of Congress to help grease her rise in the party establishment. And as chair of the Democratic National Committee, she overturned President Obama’s 2008 ban on corporate lobby donations to the DNC, opening the door wider to enhancing Big Sugar’s political clout.

Wasserman Schultz Dithers and Delays Needed Reforms

As a member of Congress, Wasserman Schultz has voted, on multiple occasions, for hefty federal subsidies to the sugar and agricultural industries. These subsidies--  more than $100 million a year to the two largest sugar companies--  are some of the worst forms of corporate handouts in America today, with taxpayers propping up industries that now threaten to drown much of South Florida in endless pollution.

Wasserman Schultz blames Gov. Scott, who she says has “dithered, delayed and derailed responsible steps to restore our famed Everglades.” But her own record of dithering and delay goes back much further than Scott’s. As a member of the Florida Senate, Wasserman Schultz voted in 2003 for an amendment to the Everglades Forever Act that delayed Big Sugar’s deadline to clean up the Everglades for years and placed a greater burden on ordinary taxpayers for cleanup costs, rather than making polluters pay.

Wasserman Schultz has lauded her vote to appropriate funds for relatively minor Everglades restoration projects, such as some bridges on the Tamiami Trail, so far south of Lake Okeechobee as to be completely insignificant to the problem now confronting us. She also lauds her vote to restore the same dikes that have diverted immense amounts of filthy water from Lake Okeechobee west through the Caloosahatchee River toward Fort Myers and Sanibel Island, and east through the Saint Lucie River toward Stuart.

According to numerous scientists and policymakers, to truly address this crisis will require allowing the waters of Lake Okeechobee to flow south into the Everglades, where natural marshland and plant life, such as bulrush and hydrilla, would filtrate phosphorous and other toxins. But literally standing in the way of this solution are the large sugar farms south of the lake. In 2008, then Florida Gov. Charlie Crist announced a massive deal, under which Florida would purchase 187,000 acres of land and facilities from the sugar companies for a fair market value of $1.8 billion, and convert such land into marshland and reservoirs.

When the state was not able to find the money to make this happen, Florida voters approved Amendment 1 in 2014-- with 76 percent of the vote statewide-- to use hundreds of millions of dollars a year in real estate taxes for conservation and land purchases. Yet, Gov. Scott continued to protect the Big Sugar companies--  eager to keep their annual federal subsidies--  by diverting those Amendment 1 funds to other purposes and projects.

On the campaign trail, I have heard a number of apologists for Debbie Wasserman Schultz suggest that we need to keep her in Congress because of her seniority, power and influence. Incredibly, she has not used her influence to introduce any legislation to fund these land purchases. In fact, she has failed to cosponsor the Everglades Land Acquisition Act of 2016, which was introduced by Rep. Curt Clawson, a Florida Republican, and would appropriate $500 million for the land purchases that had been contemplated by the Charlie Crist plan. Last week, U.S. Senator Bill Nelson called for a similar solution: eminent domain proceedings. Wasserman Schultz’s response was apparently to remain silent and go away on a cruise.

Unfortunately, Wasserman Schultz’s delay and dithering is characteristic of her record as a legislator. Last year, she missed more votes than anyone else in Florida’s U.S. House delegation and she has one of the highest absentee rates in Congress. And her record is not any more impressive when she is in attendance. In 2015, she introduced only five bills, among the lowest number in the House; and not one of her bills ever got a committee vote or made it to the floor of the House--  the lowest among the Florida delegation, among House members serving 10 years or more, among House members with safe seats--  in fact, among all Representatives.

Wasserman Schultz’s inaction certainly serves the interests of the Big Sugar and big agribusinesses that have lined her campaign war chests for years. Why sell your land to the state for an important public purpose when you can stay in business and receive hundreds of millions of dollars a year in guaranteed federal subsidies--  supported by Wasserman Schultz and so many other incumbent members of Congress.

An Even Bigger Crisis: Our Drinking Water

Unfortunately, the stakes of Wasserman Schultz’s inaction are even greater. The rising sea levels from climate change have increased the salinity of South Florida’s aquifer. Without replenishing the natural water flow from Lake Okeechobee into the Everglades--  the so-called River of Grass--  and Florida Bay, the very quality of our drinking water could be imperiled, and we could be facing a crisis of enormous proportions in the years to come--  the kind of crisis that leads to a migration and internal refugee catastrophe.

Wasserman Schultz claims to be acting for the environment while saying that I’m just all talk. She has tried to deflect attention from her own record by suggesting I’m not a real Floridian. True, I grew up in New York --  on the Great South Bay on the south shore of Long Island--  as did she and so many of my neighbors here in South Florida. But apparently unlike Wasserman Schultz, I have enjoyed the ocean and waterways of South Florida as a certified scuba diver and sailor for more than two decades. I love the beauty and majesty of our waterways, seashore and coral reefs, and I am alarmed by the growing threat to their existence. I know very well that so much of our economy in South Florida is based on tourism and recreation, industries that have already been greatly harmed--  along with real estate--  on Florida’s Treasure coast and the Sanibel Island area by this pollution. If the dark waters of the algae bloom continue to migrate south along the coastline, it may not be long before we feel the pain right here along our own beaches and waterways in my home district.

These issues are of enormous proportions and they merit debate. But Wasserman Schultz has dodged debates in this campaign. In fact, she has never had to debate a primary opponent in her entire Congressional career. She is clearly afraid to debate because she cannot defend her record of bathing in corporate money and ignoring the interests of her constituents and neighbors.

It’s time for Wasserman Schultz to realize that there’s more to politics than serving corporate interests and her own career advancement, that life and livelihoods are now at stake. Voters should tell her that this is not a laughing matter.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz And The Fajnul Sugar Empire Are So Tied Together As To Be Indistinguishable

As of the March 31 FEC reporting deadline Debbie Wasserman Schultz had already spent $1,300,451 to retain her south Florida congressional seat. Ensconced in a deep blue district whose original very gerrymandered boundaries she drew herself when she was in the state Senate, she's never had an electoral challenge and doesn't know how to run a modern campaign. She's ruled out debating her progressive primary opponent and her version of campaigning is to smear her opponent and to amass a huge war-chest by selling access to special interests. As you can see, her biggest single donor for this cycle is the Fanjul Corp. The Fanjul family and their companies have been major contributors of hers in every single election since she first ran for Congress 16 years ago. They and their companies have funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars into her political career and in return she has worked hard to keep the price of sugar artificially high.

And the Fanjuls don't just give her money directly. They have helped her build power within Congress by allowing her to direct their dark money to other right-of-center Democrats with low ethical standards. In 2007, Wasserman Schultz directed payments from a Fanjul-funded right-wing front group, the so euphemistically named neo-fascist group, US-Cuba Democracy PAC, to hand over $320,000 to Democrats of her choice that cycle. Fifty-two of the 66 Democrats who voted against Charlie Rangel’s amendment to open up trade with Cuba received one or more contributions from the U.S.-Cuba Democracy PAC that year. Wasserman Schultz's own leadership PAC gave nearly a quarter million dollars to Democrats running for re-election and election in the House that year. Between the US-Cuba Democracy PAC and her own sleazy Democrats Win Seats PAC, Wasserman Schultz was able to direct large sums to mostly conservative and corruption-friendly Democratic freshmen willing to sell her their votes, even from congressmen representing agricultural districts where this amendment would have had widespread support. At the time, her Republican ally, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), a fanatic anti-normalization extremist told the Miami Herald that Wasserman Schultz was "a tiger" in opposing Rangel's amendment, while Antonio Zamora of the U.S.-Cuba Legal Forum described her as a key party in building Democratic opposition. "I was about as active as you could be," the sleazy bribe-taking Wasserman Schultz admitted. Almost all the corrupt conservative Democrats, mostly Blue Dogs and New Dems, who took her tainted money were subsequently defeated for reelection.

Friday, Will Bredderman, writing for The Observer, examined how the Fanjuls, whose business empire includes among its subsidiaries Domino Sugar, Florida Crystals and ASR Group, which runs processing facilities across the United States, Canada and Latin America, are still spreading around money to corrupt members of both parties, even though the Fanjul empire, especially in the Dominican Republic, uses slave labor. "Over the years," Bredderman reported, "numerous cane cutters-- many of them imported from Jamaica-- on the company’s 155,000 acres in Florida have raised allegations of systemic wage theft and working conditions so poor one attorney referred to them as "modern-day slavery.'"

The U.S. Department of Labor has also repeatedly hit Florida Crystals and its offshoots for hazardous work environments in their sugar mills, including “exposing workers to lacerations and amputation injuries.”

The Fanjuls’ Central Romana subsidiary is the largest private property holder and employer in the Dominican Republic. The U.S. government has placed Dominican sugarcane, much of which comes from the Fanjul’s 200,000 acre plantation, on its list of products created through forced or child labor. A 2008 documentary, Sugar Babies, [see videos below] exposed the substandard living and labor conditions of Haitian emigres working the Fanjuls’ fields.

In 2013, the Department of Labor announced it had uncovered “evidence of apparent and potential violations” of labor standards outlined in the Dominican Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement in the company’s farms, including lack of access to drinking water, 12-hour work days, seven-day work weeks, employment of minors and overtime abuses.

The Cuban-born Fanjul brothers are also renowned for its influence over an array of American political figures, ranging from ex-President Bill Clinton to Sunshine State Sen. Marco Rubio. But both liberals and conservatives have bemoaned the way federal subsidies and price floors have bolstered the family’s fabulous fortune.

Bredderman was focused on New York state Senator Adriano Espaillat, an especially corrupt and sleazy politician running for the now-open seat Rangel is retiring from. He's owned, lock, stock and barrel by the Fanjuls, the biggest single contributor to his current campaign. Last cycle, the Fanjuls spread around their money to the members of Congress who are widely known to sell their votes fro cash. The 10 sleazy characters who took the most money from the Fanjul Corp in the 2014 cycle are listed below, from most corrupt to not quite as corrupt but close enough to go to prison for a decade or two:

• Chuck Schumer (D-NY)
• Marco Rubio (R-FL)
• Joe Garcia (New Dem-FL)
• Debbie Wasserman Schultz (New Dem-FL)
• Lois Frankel (D-FL)
• Cory Booker (D-NJ)
• Steny Hoyer (D-MD)
• Daniel Webster (R-FL)
• Ted Cruz (R-TX)
• Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL)

This morning we reached Alina Valdes, the progressive Democrat running for the south Florida seat occupied by Mario Diaz-Balart. She doesn't take tainted money from Big Sugar and she pointed out to us that "just like the Diaz-Balart dynasty of four brothers, the Fanjul brothers dynasty of four brothers have profited from the rampant workers' rights violations dating back to Cuba. This oppression has done nothing but make both prominent, wealthy families with plenty of political influence stretching across two countries. It is no wonder that neither family and their wealthy supporters wish to lift the Cuban embargo when they have profited so handsomely from its continuation. As the remaining Diaz-Balart in politics, Mario benefits from the Fanjul brothers' continued human rights violations on their plantations in the Dominican Republic and the US governmental subsidies to sugar bestowed on the industry.

"Sugar is present in a majority of products we consume whether we know it or want it. As Americans, we have developed an addiction for this sweetener and it is the cause of many health problems like obesity and diabetes. It is no wonder that the U.S. Cuba Democracy PAC would not even consider supporting me when they have Mario Diaz-Balart, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and her minions from both sides of the aisle in their pockets. It is time to see these career politicians for what they are... protectors and supporters of industries that contribute to their re-election campaigns so they can profit on the backs of the poor and needy. Greed is a strong motivation for many of these industries and sugar is no exception. To think that they could still do very well without taking advantage of desperate people here and abroad is a thought that does not occur to them. This is why it is time to show these special interest career politicians that we are sick and tired of their lack of representation for the people who elect them."

Will GOP Voters Care That Rubio Has Been Taking Massive Bribes From The Sugar Industry For His Entire Sleazy Career?

Rubio has been super-careful to never pose for a picture with any Fanjuls but after a recent speech about being the son of a bartender, he headed straight into the arms of Pepe

Florida Crystals Corp is, along with Domino Sugar, C&H Sugar, American Sugar Refining, Tate & Lyle European Sugar and Redpath Sugar, the core of the Fanjul Corp, a vast sugar conglomerate owned by the Cuban-born Fanjul brothers, Alfonso (AKA- Alfy, who never bothered to become a U.S. citizen) and José (AKA- Pepe). The plutocratic family-- featured in films like The One Percent and Inside Claridge's-- fled Cuba when Fidel Castro's revolution succeeded. Their father, Alfonso, Sr. set up sugar growing and milling operations near Lake Okeechobee (and in Louisiana) in 1960 and later, in the Dominican Republic, where it was easier to use child labor. To exercise political power in their adopted country, one brother, Alfy, started bribing Democrats and the other brother, Pepe, started bribing Republicans, Let's take a look at some contributions from this year as examples:

• Feb 11, 2015- Alfie Fanjul gives the DCCC $33,400 at Debbie Wasserman Schultz's request
• May 1, 2015- Pepe Fanjul gives the NRSC $33,400 at Marco Rubio's request
• June 30, 2015, Alfie Fanjul gives the DSCC $32,400 at Chuck Schumer's request

On that same June 30, Pepe, Emilia and Alex Fanjul all wrote huge checks to Rubio for his campaign, several of which were returned for being over the legal limits. That's because 5 days earlier, Emilia Fanjul had given Rubio a $2,700 check and the day before Alex Fanjul had given Rubio $3,240 and Pepe had given him $2,700, making their June 30 checks illegal. June, in fact, saw over a dozen instances of Fanjul family members writing illegal checks to Rubio that had to be returned. Earlier in the month Pepe gave Boehner two $2,700 checks, the same day he wrote another one to the NRCC for $19,600 (June 8, 2015). The bribes to Republicans and Democrats, primarily from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party, have been unceasing and have amounted to millions of dollars, much of it directed from Fanjul allies Marco Rubio and Debbie Wasserman Schultz. The Fanjuls also finance the Florida Sugar Cane League which has funneled millions more to eager politicians from both parties, particularly to corrupt Members on the Agriculture Committee like Minnesota Blue Dog Collin Peterson, Frank Lucas (R-OK), Pete Aguilar (New Dem-CA), Rodney Davis (R-IL), Cheri Bustos (Blue Dog-IL), Steve King (R-IA), Jeff Denham (R-CA), Gwen Graham (Blue Dog-FL), Ted Yoho (R-FL), Sean Patrick Maloney (New Dem-NY), Mike Bost (R-IL), Jackie Walorski (R-IN), and David Rouzer (R-NC).

When Rubio published An American Son, his self-serving autobiography, which is more like a product description, than what anyone would call "a book," he went out of his way to thank the Fanjuls.

As expected, Rubio’s biography was tedious and un-noteworthy. The actual writing, for someone who claims to have done it himself is far from anything that might suggest he has any gift for rhetoric or oratory skills, something that we might hope for in a president. Ultimately he seems very plain vanilla, uninspiring and no more or less qualified than any other junior member of Congress, albeit with a somewhat delusional neocon point of view.

Perhaps the most enlightening pages of the book come in the acknowledgements where Mr. Rubio explicitly thanks The Fanjul brothers, with a second nod to Norman Braman and then a final shout out to Jesus Christ. In the post-Citizen’s United world we would all really like to know who is bankrolling our politicians and thereby whose interest they will be beholden to.

I happen to agree with many of Braman’s positions and causes, but I am adamantly opposed to the idea that Rubio basically owes his entire existence to one man. As the NY Times reported in 2008 Rubio had a net worth of $8,000 and by 2013 he had $450k in liabilities. Braman has personally bankrolled Rubio and Rubio’s wife, actually giving them jobs, they are and or have been employees of Braman. While the only overtly obvious muscle Rubio has pulled for Braman is getting the $80 million for the University of Miami Cancer Center approved, the relative ease with which it was accomplished bodes ominously.

Rubio got his superpac up and running in April of this year, I think it would be reasonable to expect that both Braman and the Fanjuls, among many others have given their strong financial support... Braman helped to kill expansion of public transport in Miami and the Fanjul’s well, they own sugar, cutting down and draining the everglades, sugarcane and all that, among other very questionable business practices.

As Florida environmental activist Alan Farago explained for HuffPo readers yesterday, the lid is coming off the hush-hush world of grotesque corruption between Big Sugar (the Fanjuls) and Florida politics. Farago points out that Grover Norquist declared that ending the sugar subsidy in the Farm Bill was his top priority, after cutting taxes. Norquist called the sugar subsidy, 'cronyism in its undiluted, inexcusable majesty.' But without those subsidies, the Fanjuls would not have financed the rise to political power for mediocre characters like Rubio and Wasserman Schultz. And now Ted Cruz wants to use the issue to destroy Rubio. As Bill Moyers told his followers, after Tuesday's debate, "Cruz pointed to sugar subsidies as a prime example of crony capitalism-- a semi-subtle dig at Floridian opponent Marco Rubio, the sugar industry's man in Washington. Rubio argued yesterday that doing away with our subsidies would mean surrendering American jobs, but neither liberal nor conservative commentators are buying that defense."

GOP donors Pepe and Emilia

Big Sugar's perks amount to legalized corruption of the campaign finance system. In Florida, Big Sugar money influence is so great that the industry acts in the state capitol as a shadow government. What Big Sugar wants, it gets. These days, a solid GOP majority in the state legislature, Gov. Rick Scott, and [Agriculture Secretary] Adam Putnam...are so deep in Big Sugar's pocket, you can't even see them. Not that Floridians are looking.

...It is a sign of desperation that Jeb Bush, trailing his dispirited exclamation point like a wet blanket, has called for the end to the sugar subsidy that keeps domestic sugar at nearly twice the price of world markets and provides profits to sugar billionaires like the Fanjuls of Coral Gables and Palm Beach with seed for next season's crop of political hopefuls. In eight years as governor, Jeb Bush was as unfailing a friend to Big Sugar as Mitch McConnell to Big Coal in Kentucky.

Marco Rubio owes his political existence to Big Sugar. He carried the industry's water in the 2003 attempt through the state legislature to up-end the Everglades settlement agreement, helping Jeb Bush in passing a new law that was subsequently over-turned through federal litigation by environmentalists, derided as "The Everglades Whenever Act." After Gov. Charlie Crist tried to buyout more than 130,000 acres of US Sugar lands, the Fanjuls threw their full weight (and money) to Rubio-- then fighting Crist for the US Senate.

So it is no surprise that Marco Rubio will parrot whatever lines he is fed by Big Sugar. Most recently, their line of defense was that protectionism is necessary on grounds of "national security". Rubio complained, "We will not unilaterally disarm"; meaning surrender sugar profits to Brazil. For the first time, though, blowing Big Sugar's smoke doesn't seem to be holding.

Rubio's specious argument is not just an easy target for Cruz. Conservatives who fund political campaigns are being asked-- through this disruptive GOP presidential primary-- to take the litmus test themselves.

Although we have been saying for a long, long time-- Big Sugar poisons people, poisons democracy and poisons the Everglades-- the only way to describe what it feels like in Florida to have the sugar subsidy in the spotlight is: OMG.

So far, just this year, these are the dozen biggest recipients in the House of Big Sugar bribes:

And these are the dozen crooks in the House who took the biggest bribes from Big Sugar last cycle:

Notice that after two of their most corrupt Florida congressmen failed to win reelection in 2016, despite Fanjul contributions-- Miami-Dade New Dem Joe Garcia and Panhandle teabagger Steve Southerland-- the slippery Fanjuls instantly started filling the pockets of the winners, two more arch corruptionists, Republican Carlos Curbelo and Blue Dog Gwen Graham.

But if you think the Rubio's sugar problems stem from a biased "left wing media," check out yesterday's evisceration of Rubio at the far right National Review, where, referencing the photo above, Elaina Plott wrote that "[w]hen Marco Rubio announced his bid for president in April, he delivered a message of opportunity. He lamented the increasingly hollow promise of the American Dream, as small-business owners find themselves crippled by “the weight of more taxes, more regulations, and more government.” He walked off the stage to thunderous applause and into the embrace of Jose “Pepe” Fanjul, the billionaire sugar baron who for years now has helped bankroll Rubio’s political career." At least Rubio's financial relationship with Braman hasn't caused Rubio to "adjust his political positions to serve Braman’s interests," unlike in the Fanjul case. "Ted Cruz," she wrote, "sparked the wires in Tuesday’s Fox Business debate in Milwaukee, throwing a veiled jab at Rubio’s support for the federal sugar subsidies from which the Fanjuls profit, which cost nearly $2 billion annually." Although most Americans understand what a bribe is, the Rubio campaign dismissed Cruz's broadside, his sleazy-bag manager, Terry Sullivan, telling reporters that only ".0000001 percent of the American people" would understand it. That few, huh?

The latticework of loans and tariffs that make up the U.S. sugar program force Americans to pay about twice as much as the rest of the world for the sugar they eat, and few have benefited more from the industry subsidies than Pepe Fanjul and his family...

Rubio’s relationship with the Fanjuls began during his time in the Florida legislature and deepened during his Senate race, when he was battling establishment favorite Charlie Crist. He wrote in his memoir, American Son, that the “crown jewel” of his fundraising efforts during the 2010 race was an event headlined by the Fanjul family in the Hamptons, where Rubio and his wife joined the Fanjuls over Labor Day weekend, and where Pepe introduced him to Rudy Giuliani. Giuliani would go on to enthusiastically endorse Rubio over Crist, and Pepe Fanjul and his son each doled out the maximum contribution of $2,400 during the campaign.

Before these fundraising efforts, Rubio had attacked Crist for promoting a bailout of U.S. Sugar, the Fanjuls’ principal industry rival. In an interview with Glenn Beck on March 8, 2010, Rubio slammed Crist for “ramming down the throats of taxpayers a bailout of a sugar company.”

The Fanjuls’ relationship with Rubio stuck and, since 2009, Florida Crystals ranks as Rubio’s fourth largest donor, having given him a total of $105,500.

That number doesn’t include the family’s itemized individual contributions to Rubio’s Senate race and to his presidential bid or the dollars the Fanjuls have bundled from others. This spring, just eight days after Rubio announced his candidacy, Pepe Fanjul Jr. and his wife, Lourdes, hosted a fundraiser for Rubio at their Palm Beach home, where tickets ranged from $1,000 to $2,700 a pop.

...Rubio has remained a consistent, vocal supporter of the sugar subsidy during his rise to national prominence. At a Koch brothers’ Republican summit in August, Rubio gave a defense of the federal sugar program that left many in the audience of staunch free-marketeers scratching their heads. If the U.S. eliminates the program, he argued, “other countries will capture the market share, our agricultural capacity will be developed into real estate, you know, housing and so forth, and then we lose the capacity to produce our own food, at which point we’re at the mercy of a foreign country for food security.”

...Rubio has staked his candidacy on empowering the middle class, and has denounced the Export-Import Bank as a bastion of “taxpayer money” for “corporate welfare.” His support for sugar subsidies, and his tight relationship with their largest beneficiaries, flies in the face of that position, which may pose problems as the primary season develops.

“One of the best ways to attack Hillary Clinton is on crony capitalism and corporate welfare, and any marks that the GOP candidate has on his record where he’s in favor of these things will weaken him,” says Tim Carney, visiting fellow at AEI. He adds that it makes Rubio a “worse nominee” to tout his belief in free trade, “except for sugar,” as well as a “protectionism that helps some of his earliest fundraisers.”

Forget these crooked politicians-- Rubio, Cruz, Clinton, Bush... There's only one person decent enough and fit enough to be president of our country.

Is Florida Really The Most Corrupt State In America?

The superficial, court-ordered redistricting in Florida only scratches the surface of the prevalent culture of political corruption that permeates the state's two political parties. The judgment does not attempt to deals ith anything but two tiny and blatant cases of grotesque gerrymandering-- and that was all the state legislature dealt with. Even if the new plan goes into effect in 2016, Florida will still be one of the most unfairly gerrymandered states in the Union-- despite the overwhelming passage of a citizens' initiative to put an end to the practice. But even the tiny ameliorative effort agreed to by the legislature is being challenged by corrupt Republican political hack Daniel "Taliban Dan" Webster.

Webster is busy raising money for a court challenge. No one has contributed yet, but Taliban Dan has filed the Daniel Webster Legal Expense Trust with the House Ethics Committee and plans to use it to solicit money from crooked lobbyists and other special interests who have already maxed out to his reelection campaign. Webster, a crackpot religious fanatic and follower of cult leader and child rapist Bill Gothard, has managed to amass one of the most reactionary/anti-family voting records of any Member of Congress. Webster on Gothard's demented teachings: "They are the basis for everything I do today." He brags about using Gothard's sick, corrupted rants in the political life of his central Florida district:



Webster, like many Florida Republican legislators, has been violently anti-LGBT throughout his miserable career. On February 28, 2013, for example, he voted for the failed amendment to strip protections for American Indians, immigrants, and members of the LGBT community from an anti-domestic violence bill. It failed because 60 Republicans joined the Democrats to defeat it, 257-166, including conservative Floridians Ted Yoho, Ron DeSantis, Mario Diaz-Balart, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and Trey Radel. Two years earlier he had worked frantically to prevent gay men and women volunteers from serving in the military and has voted against every attempt to allow members of the LGBT community to get married. He's a sick cookie-- and he isn't evolving, not even at the snail's pace other Florida Republicans are finally adopting. Just yesterday, the Miami Herald in covering the GOP primary debate for FL-26, pointed out that Republican candidates are not taking the kinds of vicious anti-LGBT stands that Old Testament authoritarians like Webster are clinging to. In fact, other GOP candidates have also been lightening up a bit on Global Warming, another agenda item that finds Taliban Dan off muttering to himself and to a shrinking band of fringe lunatics in crazy-land.

Questions on sea-level rise, immigration and gay marriage revealed divisions among the four contenders who taped Facing South Florida, which will air Sunday on Miami Herald news partner WFOR-CBS 4. A fifth candidate, ex-Congressman David Rivera, declined to attend.

By the end of the taping, Carlos Curbelo, Ed MacDougall, Joe Martinez and Lorenzo Palomares-Starbuck had agreed on plenty. But there was dissent in the very first question from investigative reporter Jim DeFede, who asked if all the candidates vying to represent Westchester to Key West would concur that-- whatever the cause-- seas are rising.

Yes, said the candidates-- except for one.

“I’m not exactly sure,” said Martinez, a former Miami-Dade County commissioner. “I’m not a scientist, Jim.”

…On gay marriage, it was again Martinez who differed with his three rivals. MacDougall, Curbelo and Palomares-Starbuck said they support making marriages among same-sex couples legal.

“It’s the right thing to do,” MacDougall said.

Martinez, however, said the question should be left up to states-- and if Florida voters were asked to repeal the state’s gay-marriage ban, he would vote no, Martinez added after the show’s taping. He does support civil unions and benefits for same-sex partners, he said.

A federal judge in Tallahassee ruled Thursday that Florida’s gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional, though he stayed his own order pending appeals.

Reform-minded citizens in every state like to brag that their state is the most corrupt: New Jersey, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Illinois, Texas, New York, California, all have good cases that can be made on their behalf. But some say that Florida already has it sewn up. We're talking about a state that elected the most overtly corrupt governor in modern history after he had plead the Fifth Amendment 75 times and was then fined $1.7 Billion for running the biggest Medicare fraud scheme in history. This guy:



But Rick Scott isn't the root of Florida's endless epidemic of political corruption. One of the worst symptoms is the toxic role Big Sugar plays-- not just with slimy Republicans like Scott, but with just as slimy Democrats like Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the Democrats' go-to shill for the Fanjul sugar empire. This week Eye On Miami singled out Florida Republicans for their shocking corruption in relation to Big Sugar.

The excellent investigative report by the Tampa Bay Times, exposing links between Florida's top GOP politicians-- including Gov. Rick Scott and Republican legislative leadership-- Big Sugar and high cost, free hunting trips to the King Ranch in Texas show the extent to which the party of the "free market" freely undermines the ideals of its base: sugar is one of the most heavily protected industrial crops in America, enjoying vast subsidies including illegal (according to the Florida Constitution) subsidies for the costs of Everglades cleanup.

Sugar's true cost to taxpayers, and the context of U.S. Sugar and Florida Crystal's flagrant entertainments of elected officials, isn't the Everglades and measures to shift cleanup costs to taxpayers-- it is public health and strategies to prevent Big Sugar from becoming the next Big Tobacco.

"Drastic Measures," in the Financial Times (April 25, 2014): notes the reach of Big Sugar, but also details a dramatic shift in health care priorities that is putting the first significant, coordinated pressure on sugar consumption. Earlier this year the World Health Organization reduced the recommended daily sugar intake by half, to the equivalent of six teaspoons of sugar a day.

"The amount of scientific research linking sugar intake with obesity has increased. And governments are waking up to the rising costs of illnesses such as diabetes and cancer that have increased alongside obesity. "The discussion of sugar linked to dietary concerns has been has been gathering momentum," says Stefano Natella of Credit Suisse. "The related global healthcare costs are at an all-time high--the bill is $500 billion or over 10 percent of global healthcare spending-- as are obesity and diabetes levels."

While Republican members of Congress ranted and raved about the costs of the Affordable Health Care Act, none also complained about the toll on consumers' health through excess consumption of sugar.

Democrats have also been loathe to tie the costs of Big Sugar to the domestic health care emergency, because of the enormous impact of campaign contributions to members of Congress and state legislatures where sugar is grown. When Michele Obama tried to move her popular "Get Moving" campaign towards the sugar problem, she was warned off by White House policy makers.

It is not just Florida, but Florida is the state where the lockdown by Big Sugar of the Florida legislature and Governor's Office is a given. The entire governmental investment for Everglades restoration, spending billions and hundreds of thousands of man hours in the multi-decadal effort, is a work-around of Big Sugar.

Cynical industry manipulation of public processes, with billionaires at their joysticks -- is crippling government agencies and forced Congress through the Farm Bill and state legislatures through lax regulations to keep intact taxpayer backed programs that form the backbone of protectionist trade policies.

So why haven't environmentalists decried Big Sugar as the same kind of destroyer as Big Tobacco? It's time.

"Sugar has become the new tobacco," says Simon Capewell, professor of clinical epidemiology at Liverpool University, one of the founders of Action on Sugar, a UK campaign group formed in January. "Everywhere, sugary drinks and junk foods are pressed on unsuspecting parents and children by a cynical industry focused on profit not health."

A secondary impact for bribe-hungry conservatives is that sugar rots the brains of people who over-use it, which explains why non-millionaires vote for Republicans and for deceitful politicians from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz-- Sugar And Spice And... Nothing Nice

First Jewish Speaker? How about one who isn't steeped in corruption?

Want to know if your physician is competent? Has he asked you about your sugar consumption? If he hasn't, find another doctor. Sugar contributes to many of the maladies that most effect mankind, from cancer, diabetes and heart disease to tooth decay and dementia. But the powerful sugar industry is as willing to fight regulation as the tobacco industry was. And, like the tobacco industry did, the sugar barons have plenty of powerful allies (or, more accurately, bought-and-paid-for minions). Worst of the lot is the head of the DNC, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a cog in the Fanjul brothers corrupt, sugary empire.

Last February when Joe Pitts (R-PA) introduced H.R. 693 we took a look at how Wasserman Schultz teamed up with Republicans to derail the bill. Five years earlier she flexed her political muscles on behalf of sugar and the Fanjuls in a way that shocked many in Washington. This is what I wrote at the time:

Wasserman Schultz is a funnel for far right Cuban money to Democratic members of the House and for sugar cane money (which is behind anything that will keep the U.S. from normal relations with Cuba). In fact... to help everyone get a better picture of what a complete bucket of slime Wasserman Schultz is, since she has been very successful at portraying herself as an up-and-coming progressive Democrat with a bright future. This is from the August 15, 2007 Hill:

When Democrats gained control of Congress, hopes were high that Cuba travel and trade restrictions would be eased by a party historically opposed to a so-called hard line on Cuba.

So far, however, the Democratic-led House has been tougher on Cuba than when Republicans controlled the lower chamber.

Sixty-six House Democrats-- including 20 members of the freshman class-- recently voted against a farm bill amendment offered by Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) that would have made it easier for U.S. farmers to sell agricultural goods to Cuba.

...Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) was instrumental in winning Democratic votes against the Rangel amendment. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) told the Miami Herald that Wasserman Schultz was “a tiger” on the Rangel vote, while Antonio Zamora of the U.S.-Cuba Legal Forum described her as a key party in building Democratic opposition.

“I was about as active as you could be,” said Wasserman Schultz, a second-termer who serves as a deputy chief whip for Democrats. At the same time, she said other members such as Reps. Albio Sires (D-N.J.) and Robert Andrews (D-N.J.) also worked hard to whip opposition.

...Wasserman Schultz’s position on Cuba puts her at odds with some Democratic leaders, but she said she has no worries that this might affect her if she seeks a higher leadership position in the future.

Two of the purveyors of DeLay-level corruption in the House leadership, Steny Hoyer and Majority Whip Jim Clyburn voted against Rangel's amendment (Wasserman Schultz's corrupt mentor Rahm Emanuel abstained) as another right-wing front group in cahoots with Wasserman Schultz, US-Cuba Democracy PAC, forked over $320,000 to Democrats in the current cycle.

Fifty-two of the 66 Democrats who voted against Rangel’s amendment have received one or more contributions from the U.S.-Cuba Democracy PAC since the beginning of the 2007-2008 cycle, according to Federal Election Commission filings.

It has given $56,000 to 22 Democratic freshmen this year, and 17 of those freshmen voted against Rangel’s amendment. The giving began during the run-up to the 2006 election. Freshman Reps. Bruce Braley (D-Iowa), Brad Ellsworth (D-Ind.), Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), Phil Hare (D-Ill.), Ed Perlmutter (D-Colo.), Albio Sires (D-N.J.), Zack Space (D-Ohio) and Charlie Wilson (D-Ohio) received donations before they were elected, and all but Giffords voted against Rangel’s amendment.

The votes of the freshmen are a concern to those who believe the current U.S. policy on Cuba is ineffective. “At this point we must as a matter of urgency prevent a generation of Democratic legislators from becoming permanent embargo supporters,” wrote Robert Muse, a Washington, D.C., lawyer with expertise in U.S.-Cuban policy, in an analysis of the vote.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz has a PAC which has given nearly a quarter million dollars to Democrats running for re-election and election in the House. Between the US-Cuba Democracy PAC and her own sleazy Democrats Win Seats PAC this is how much loot Wasserman Schultz was able to direct to Democratic freshmen willing to sell her their votes, even from congressmen representing agricultural districts where this amendment would have had widespread support. The first amount comes from the US-Cuba Democracy PAC and the second came directly from the shady Wasserman Schultz PAC:

Jason Altmire (PA-04) $8,000 + $5,000
Mike Arcuri (NY-24) $4,000 + $2,000
Bruce Braley (IA-01) $5,000
Chris Carney (PA-10) $7,000 + $7,500
Kathy Castor (FL-11) $2,000
Joe Donnelly (IN-02) $3,000 + $5,000
Brad Ellsworth (IN-08) $3,000 + $3,000
Gabby Giffords (AZ-08) $5,000 + $5,000
Kirsten Gillibrand (NY-20) $8,000 + $4,000
Phil Hare (IL-17) $9,000 + $1,000
Ron Klein (FL-22) $10,000 + $4,000
Tim Mahoney (FL-16) $10,000 + $7,500
Harry Mitchell (AZ-05) 0 + $4,000
Patrick Murphy (PA-08) $6,000 + $4,000
Joe Sestak (PA-07) $1,000 + $2,000
Heath Shuler (NC-11) $7,000 + $5,000
Albio Sires (NJ-13) $10,000
Zach Space (OH-18) $7,000 +$4,000

This year Wasserman's PAC looked at the House races coming up and has only contributed money to conservative Democrats, 4 to be exact: Cheri Bustos (IL), Dan Maffei (NY), Patrick Murphy (FL) and Kyrsten Sinema (AZ). In the 2012 campaign she contributed $391,000 to 90 candidates. The biggest recipients were arch-conservatives Ron Barber ($14,500) and Patrick Murphy ($10,000). The cycle before, shecontributed $582,000, although most of it went to Blue Dogs and new Dems who were defeated. This is how corrupt careerists like Wasserman Schultz build power. They take money from criminal elements like the Fanjuls and then spread it around to members of their own party, building personal loyalty-- and guaranteeing the contributors that they can deliver the votes needed to prevent reform. Wasserman Schultz has her eyes set on the speakership and has appropriated Rahm Emanuel's dream of being the first Jewish Speaker. Got oyfhitn undz fun yener khurbn!

Can Debbie Wasserman Schultz Bend U.S. Policy To The Will Of Her Corrupt Financiers, The Fanjul Sugar Barons?

Click to read the web of sugar corruption

You don't normally see DWT championing bills introduced by anti-Choice fanatic and far right extremist Joe Pitts (R-PA). But when he introduced H.R. 693 last week, a new day of bipartisanship may not have dawned, but we recognized that Pitts is doing the right thing for a change. And he was immediately joined by a healthy cross-aisle bunch of co-sponsors that ranges from the lunatic fringe-- Lou Barletta (R-PA), Steve Womack (R-AR) and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)-- to solidly mainstream legislators like Jackie Speier (D-CA), Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) and Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH). The Sugar Reform Act seeks to "ensure adequate sugar supplies at reasonable prices" by, among other things, rolling back price supports that unfairly benefit wealthy sugar producers-- primarily the Fanjul brothers-- as the expense of consumers.

Congress has tackled this before but between Fanjul DC consiglieres Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), the legislation has always been derailed. Now the grotesquely corrupt Wasserman Schultz has accumulated even more power than ever before and she is working assiduously to shore up the interests of her benefactors, regardless of what it costs the very people who vote her into office year after year after year. The principal sponsor of the Senate version of the bill (S.345), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), said "American families are footing the bill for an outdated program that offers a sweet deal to a small group of sugar growers and processors. No program should be immune to updates or improvements" Her co-sponsors include Mark Kirk (R-IL) and Pat Toomey (R-PA) agree that the artificial limits put on sugar imports (read: Cuba) drives up the price for consumers while making Wasserman Schultz's political financiers, the Fanjuls, fabulously wealthy. As much as $14 billion has been transferred from American consumers to wealthy sugar barons in the last 4 years alone-- and, of course, their supporters in Congress, like Wasserman Schultz, get a cut. Since 1997 over 100,000 American jobs have been lost in sugar-using industries.

Danny Davis (D-IL), another reform supporter brave enough to go up against Wasserman Schultz, points out that "Left unchanged, the current sugar program will continue to hurt American workers by driving good American manufacturing jobs to Canada, Mexico, and other foreign countries. Left unchanged, the current sugar program will continue to hurt American consumers by unnecessarily inflating the price of every product made with sugar. It is time to change this anachronistic program."

This is what the bill is trying to accomplish:

• Repeal unnecessary trade restrictions. The 2008 Farm Bill restricted the ability of the Secretary of Agriculture to allow additional sugar imports when needed in the U.S. market. The 2008 Farm Bill required USDA to set import quotas (also known as tariff-rate quotas) at a legal minimum each year, with very limited flexibility to then respond to changing market conditions as needed. This bill would repeal these unnecessary restrictions that have further restricted supply, providing greater flexibility to those implementing the program.

• Repeal the Feedstock Flexibility Program. The 2008 Farm Bill added a $193 million program that requires the government to buy surplus sugar, and then sell that sugar to ethanol companies at a loss. This bill would save taxpayers from footing the bill for keeping prices high.

• Eliminate higher price support levels. The 2008 Farm Bill facilitated higher price supports for sugar growers. Reducing these rates would help put prices back in line with historic levels and reduce liability for taxpayers.

• Reform domestic supply restrictions to provide more flexibility to USDA. This bill would eliminate the current artificial guarantee of 85 percent of consumption and ensure that the current program is administered with sugar-using industries also in mind. In addition, the bill would restore the Secretary of Agriculture’s authority to modify or suspend these domestic marketing allotments.

• Provide flexibility to USDA in administering quotas. This bill would also give USDA more flexibility in administering the import quota system. The billencourages greater efficiency by allowing qualifying countries to trade their quotas among themselves on a temporary and voluntary basis. In addition, the amendment establishes a target stocks-to-use ratio for USDA to ensure that implementation of the federal government’s sugar policy is transparent and consistent.

• Provide savings. The federal sugar program has cost consumers and businesses an estimated $14 billion over the last 4 years.

I had to laugh yesterday when I found a letter of support for the reforms from the Koch brothers own advocacy arm, Americans for Prosperity. Is an epic battle looming between the Koch brothers and the Fanjul brothers? Who do you root for, Godzilla or Rodan?

On behalf of more than two million Americans for Prosperity activists in all 50 states, I write in support of the Sugar Reform Act (S.345 and H.R.693). Your legislation would make several reforms to U.S. sugar programs that benefit special interests at the expense of American consumers and taxpayers.

The 2008 farm law included a number of provisions that amount to corporate welfare for the sugar industry, and your bill would remove many of them. Most notably, your legislation eliminates the tariff-rate quotas that limit sugar imports and lead to higher domestic prices. It also repeals the Feedstock Flexibility Program, an antiquated program that requires the government to buy up surplus sugar and sell it to ethanol companies at a Farm Bill SNAP Coalition Letterloss. Your bill includes several additional reforms that ease trade restrictions for sugar and promote transparency.

Americans continue to struggle in the down economy, and the last thing they need is government policies that cause them to pay higher sugar prices than the rest of the world. Unfortunately, the U.S. sugar program does precisely that. The American Enterprise Institute reports that our sugar program costs consumers $2.4 billion annually, and has a net economic cost of $1 billion.

Regrettably, handouts for the sugar industry are not an anomaly in agricultural policy. The farm bill is full of special favors for many other agricultural sectors, such as dairy and cotton. When Congress considers the farm bill later in 2013, it should consider similar reforms on our other broken agricultural programs. U.S. food and agricultural policy should be based on free market mechanisms, not on government favoritism.

AFP is proud to support the Sugar Reform Act (S.345 and H.R.693). I urge your colleagues to support its passage. I look forward to working with you in the future.

Tigers of corruption

Who remembers when Wasserman Schultz first came out swinging on behalf of the Fanjuls-- spreading around their bribes to get freshmen to vote against easing agricultural trade restrictions against Cuba? The bill Wasserman Schultz, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and other pawns of the Fanjuls were able to sabotage was, like this one, bipartisan. Charlie Rangel, then chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, was the sponsor and it seemed like it was in the bag.

When Democrats gained control of Congress, hopes were high that Cuba travel and trade restrictions would be eased by a party historically opposed to a so-called hard line on Cuba.

So far, however, the Democratic-led House has been tougher on Cuba than when Republicans controlled the lower chamber.

Sixty-six House Democrats-- including 20 members of the freshman class-- recently voted against a farm bill amendment offered by Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) that would have made it easier for U.S. farmers to sell agricultural goods to Cuba.

...Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) was instrumental in winning Democratic votes against the Rangel amendment. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) told The Miami Herald that Wasserman Schultz was “a tiger” on the Rangel vote, while Antonio Zamora of the U.S.-Cuba Legal Forum described her as a key party in building Democratic opposition.

“I was about as active as you could be,” said Wasserman Schultz, a second-termer who serves as a deputy chief whip for Democrats. At the same time, she said other members such as Reps. Albio Sires (D-N.J.) and Robert Andrews (D-N.J.) also worked hard to whip opposition.

...Wasserman Schultz’s position on Cuba puts her at odds with some Democratic leaders, but she said she has no worries that this might affect her if she seeks a higher leadership position in the future.

...Fifty-two of the 66 Democrats who voted against Rangel’s amendment have received one or more contributions from the U.S.-Cuba Democracy PAC since the beginning of the 2007-2008 cycle, according to Federal Election Commission filings.

It has given $56,000 to 22 Democratic freshmen this year, and 17 of those freshmen voted against Rangel’s amendment. The giving began during the run-up to the 2006 election. Freshman Reps. Bruce Braley (D-Iowa), Brad Ellsworth (D-Ind.), Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), Phil Hare (D-Ill.), Ed Perlmutter (D-Colo.), Albio Sires (D-N.J.), Zack Space (D-Ohio) and Charlie Wilson (D-Ohio) received donations before they were elected, and all but Giffords voted against Rangel’s amendment.

The votes of the freshmen are a concern to those who believe the current U.S. policy on Cuba is ineffective. “At this point we must as a matter of urgency prevent a generation of Democratic legislators from becoming permanent embargo supporters,” wrote Robert Muse, a Washington, D.C., lawyer with expertise in U.S.-Cuban policy, in an analysis of the vote.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz has a PAC which has given nearly a quarter million dollars to Democrats running for re-election and election in the House. [This was in 2007.] Between the US-Cuba Democracy PAC and her own sleazy Democrats Win Seats PAC this is how much loot Wasserman Schultz was able to direct to Democratic freshmen willing to sell her their votes, even from congressmen representing agricultural districts where this amendment would have had widespread support. The first amount comes from the US-Cuba Democracy PAC and the second came directly from the shady Wasserman Schultz PAC:

Jason Altmire (Blue Dog-PA) $8,000 + $5,000 [since defeated]
Mike Arcuri (D-NY) $4,000 + $2,000 [since defeated]
Bruce Braley (D-IA) $5,000 [running for Senate]
Chris Carney (Blue Dog-PA) $7,000 + $7,500 [since defeated]
Kathy Castor (D-FL) $2,000
Joe Donnelly (Blue Dog-IN) $3,000 + $5,000 [now in the Senate]
Brad Ellsworth (Blue Dog-IN) $3,000 + $3,000 [since defeated]
Gabby Giffords (Blue Dog-AZ) $5,000 + $5,000
Kirsten Gillibrand (Blue Dog-NY) $8,000 + $4,000 [now in the Senate]
Phil Hare (D-IL) $9,000 + $1,000 [since defeated]
Ron Klein (D-FL) $10,000 + $4,000 [since defeated]
Tim Mahoney (Blue Dog-FL) $10,000 + $7,500 [since defeated]
Harry Mitchell (Blue Dog-AZ) 0 + $4,000 [since defeated]
Patrick Murphy (Blue Dog-PA) $6,000 + $4,000 [since defeated]
Joe Sestak (D-PA) $1,000 + $2,000 [since defeated]
Heath Shuler (Blue Dog-NC) $7,000 + $5,000 [since forced to leave Congress for K Street]
Albio Sires (D-NJ) $10,000
Zach Space (Blue Dog-OH) $7,000 +$4,000 [since defeated]

The bill has been shunted off to the House Agriculture Committee, where chairman Frank Lucas will decide what happens next. His vice-chairman, Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), has come out strongly in favor, as has another senior GOP member of the committee, Glenn Thompson (R-PA).

Elizabeth Warren, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Scott Brown And Sugar Money

Banana Republic-- a Koch & a couple of Fanjuls... pure sleaze

This week the AFL-CIO issued an exceptionally strong-- and welcome-- statement on Citizens United. I wish the Democratic Party was as clear and straight-forward.

Two years ago, the Supreme Court seriously undermined our democracy when, continuing a trend of deregulatory campaign finance decisions, it ruled to allow unlimited independent campaign spending by business corporations and other groups.

The Citizens United ruling further tilted the playing field in favor of the 1% and against the 99%, whose voices are being drowned out by excessive spending and influence by corporations and the wealthy.

Since the Citizens United ruling came down, and particularly since the rise of the Occupy Wall Street movement, there has been growing momentum in support of public policy solutions aimed at curbing excessive corporate influence and restoring greater balance in our political process. From federal and state initiatives to bring about greater transparency and disclosure of spending by corporate interests and wealthy donors, to proposals for a constitutional amendment restoring Congress’ ability to regulate campaign spending, to calls for abolishing corporate "personhood," people from coast to coast have sounded the alarm about the need for reforms to rein in excessive corporate influence in our democracy.

The AFL-CIO supports the overturning of the Citizens United decision and calls for immediate action to end the dominance of our political system by corporations and the 1%. The AFL-CIO has long advocated for measures to bring about greater fairness, openness and participation in elections-- reforms that enfranchise voters and ensure that wealth does not wield disproportionate influence. We support public financing of campaigns, limitations on individual contributions to candidates and parties and public disclosure of political expenditures. We also support measures to enable citizens to vote more easily, and we oppose voter identification and similar measures that are aimed at seizing partisan advantage through disenfranchisement. And, we oppose misleadingly labeled “paycheck protection” measures that would exacerbate inequality by hampering union political activity while leaving corporate and rich individuals’ political spending unimpeded.

The Citizens United ruling has opened the floodgates to massive spending by corporations and even more so by wealthy donors. They are pouring money into our electoral system and threaten to drown out the voices of hard-working Americans. Common-sense restrictions on their spending are needed, along with robust disclosure of their contributions and expenditures-- including their contributions to organizations engaged in electoral activity.

The AFL-CIO also supports reforms aimed at restoring business corporations to their proper role as commercial institutions and limiting their influence in the political sphere. Business corporations are not people-- they are manmade creatures of law that exist to generate economic activity and create jobs and income in communities. The notion that they should enjoy the same rights and protections as natural persons is absurd and it is destructive to our democracy. At the same time, for more than a century, corporations have enjoyed certain constitutional protections, such as due process protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, which are consistent with basic American values. We support reforms, including changes to our tax laws and corporate laws, that address corporate dominance of our political system and that restore corporations to their proper role in our democracy.

Congress should pass and the Supreme Court should uphold the necessary reforms to protect our democracy from the power of money. As long as Citizens United remains the law of the land, constitutional change may be the only option. Amending the U.S. Constitution should be a rare act, done with the greatest of care. To earn our support, any such amendment must be carefully and narrowly crafted to protect our democracy from the economic power of the 1%, while at the same time protecting the public’s right to organize politically through democratic organizations and movements.

Working people have a long and proud history of participating in our nation’s public life through our unions. Unions are by tradition and law democratic organizations, run on the basis of one member, one vote. In a union, dollars do not vote-- people do. Our unions bring us together in our union halls, our workplaces and our homes to discuss the issues facing our nation and to come together to make our voices heard in the political process. Unions are transparent organizations-- all of our spending, including our political spending, is disclosed in great detail to the general public and union members, as required by statute since 1959. Any campaign finance reform needs to recognize the fundamental distinction between the democratically governed communications among working people through unions and the unaccountable spending by corporations and the rich.

Normally when we talk about the criminal sugar barons, the Fanjul brothers, we're about to launch into a tirade against the Democrat they have in their pocket, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. But it's important to remember, if the Fanjuls can control a third, or even half, of the Democratic Party, through Wasserman Schultz (at least on the matters that are of interest to them-- relations with Cuba and keeping the price of sugar artificially high)-- they have the whole GOP pretty much locked up. The Fanjuls define the whole idea of a banana republic in America; they are the quintessential plutocrats who have no place in our democracy-- and their servants, like Wasserman Schultz, should be booted out with them. But today's Fanjul exposé has nothing whatsoever to do with Wasserman Schultz. Today's corrupt culprit is on the other side of the aisle and on the other side of the Capitol: Scott Brown. Is he as heinous and shady as Wasserman Schultz? Hey he's new in town; give him time-- he's on the way. Last month Brown was collecting checks at a ritzy Palm Beach luncheon hosted by José “Pepe” Fanjul, the vice chairman, chief operating officer, and president of Fanjul Corp. and Florida Crystals Corporation, two Fanjul-family-owned sugar production companies. You don't recognize the name? The Domino sugar company is a subsidiary. Pepe Fanjul and his brother have been called the “Koch Brothers of South Florida” for their long record of political involvement and lobbying against industry regulations.

A 1998 Time magazine article by legendary reporters Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele called the Fanjul’s “the First Family of Corporate Welfare,” with more than $60 million in corporate subsidies benefiting their companies annually from the federal government.

But most disturbing are reports about the Fanjul’s Dominican Republic operations. In January, the Palm Beach Post reported that Wikileaks documents revealed the Fanjuls and their companies “muscled” lawmakers to kill the Central American Free Trade Agreement, which might have increased competition. A lawyer for the family dismissed any allegations of illegal or inappropriate lobbying as “chatty gossip.”

Big Sugar, a 2005 CBC documentary raised an even bigger concern. According to their investigation, workers for the Fanjul-owned Central Romano plantation work 12-hour days to earn just $2 a day. The workers go hungry in conditions that have been compared to slave labor. In a 2001 Vanity Fair article, attorney Edward Tuddenham called the treatment of sugar cane pickers under the Fanjul’s “modern-day slavery.” Their treatment of workers and the Florida everglades has been heavily questioned. Pepe Fanjul and his brother denied being barons, denied harming the everglades, and denied receiving subsidies in a 1997 New York Times letter to the editor. And in the CBC documentary, he said Centro Romano is the “most progressive employer in the Dominican Republic.”

Fanjul also made news in 2010 when the New York Post reported that his executive assistant is the ex-wife of former KKK leader David Duke and current wife of the former KKK grand wizard who runs a white-supremacist website. A company spokesman told the paper “While we may not agree with someone’s politics, we wouldn’t terminate them for that.”

Florida Sugar Company did not respond to an email requesting comment for this story.

When he kicked off his re-election campaign, Brown boasted, “Once again I won’t have the political establishment behind me – not the one on Beacon Hill, and certainly not the one on Capitol Hill.” Now we see it is the Florida GOP establishment he has in his pocket. But even with more than $750,000 in political contributions over the years, mostly to Republicans, one still has to wonder why Brown would risk aligning himself with a figure like Fanjul.

Well, it hasn't hurt Wasserman Schultz' headlong dash up the ladder of power. Of course, Wasserman Schultz meticulously drew her own district when she was in the Florida state legislature and she's never had an electoral challenge in her entire miserable career-- unless you include the challenge of working as the head of the DCCC's red-to-blue program while helping reelect 3 Fanjul Republican favorites in her neighborhood, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and the notorious Diaz-Balart brothers, all of whom would have been working as lobbyists if not for Wasserman Schultz' very public undermining of their Democratic opponents. But unlike Wasserman Schultz easy-- some would say "fixed-- waltzes to reelection, Scott Brown has the formidable task of beat back a challenge from a Democratic woman who is nothing like Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Elizabeth Warren isn't corrupt and isn't in the pocket of every (or any) special interest with a bulging wallet.

Yesterday the GOP and its Massachusetts mouthpiece, the Boston Herald, claimed that DC Democrats were miffed because Elizabeth Warren had made a pact with Brown about excluding third party PACs from the Massachusetts Senate race. (Shelly Berkely is attempting to do the same thing in her own race against Republican lightweight Dean Heller.) Elizabeth's savvy campaign manager, Doug Rubin, a Bostonian, not a Beltway freak, explained to the Republican propaganda team at the Herald that "Elizabeth wanted an enforceable agreement keeping out third party ads because she believes it is the right thing to do. She is committed to running a strong, grassroots campaign." That's something that neither Republicans nor Democratic Beltway Insiders can relate to in any way. What they can relate to-- both Republican hacks like Scott Brown and Democratic Insiders like Debbie Wasserman Schultz is unending special interest bribes. Sit back and watch Big Sugar and understand why we have to cleanse our system of people like Wasserman Schultz and Brown and elect clean candidates like Elizabeth Warren-- which you can help to do right here at our Blue America Senate page.