Paul Ryan, Self-Proclaimed Champion Of The White Working Class, Declares War On Overtime Pay Expansion

Hispanic voters, fearful of what a Trump presidency could do to their families and communities, are registering to vote at unprecedented rates. Some Republican operatives and stategists think they can overcome that by selling themselves as the party looking out for the interests of the white working class. Well, there's an element of truth in that-- if you're talking about the segment of the white working class that puts a premium on KKK membership and rabid xenophobia. In terms of policies that actually impact the working class... not so much. Last Tuesday, when the White House announced new rules expanding overtime pay for as many as 4.2 million white collar workers (many of them, presumably, as white as their collars). Republican obstructionists immediately objected and started threatening law suits.

Unfortunately for Republicans who have to face the voters in November, Speaker Ryan has vowed to lead the House GOP in a battle against the overtime expansion. Long Island Republican Peter King represents exactly the kind of district that would benefit most from the new rule, but King is a zombie-like ideologue who goes wherever Ryan leads him. The progressive Democrat contesting the South Shore congressional seat this year, DuWayne Gregory, understands the rule change will help a lot of families who live on Long Island. "This new rule will potentially have a profound impact on thousands of Long Island families," he told us this morning. "It is my hope that Peter King will not do as he usually does and go along in lock step with the obstructionist Republican agenda that is so destructive to hard working families. King needs to show some leadership on this issue and not be a lap dog for a failed agenda. I applaud the President's move to expand overtime pay for salaried workers. This new rule will have a profound impact on millions of families and will help the economy. We can't allow this Republican anti-working class Congress to hurt the families that will be impacted by implementation of this rule." In an editorial last week, the NY Times game-planned how Republican opposition could manifest itself in terms of the November elections.

Under federal law dating to 1938, an employer does not have to pay time-and-a-half when salaried employees work more than 40 hours a week if they earn enough to qualify as executives, professionals or administrators. The problem is that the salary threshold that defines a white-collar job-- at least $455 a week, or $23,660 a year-- has not been fully updated for inflation since 1975. As a result, workers who earn modest salaries are often deemed ineligible for overtime pay.

The new rules, which take effect on Dec. 1, 2016, raise the threshold to $47,476. An estimated 4.2 million workers will become newly eligible for overtime and another nine million who should be earning overtime now (because of the nature of their work), but often don’t get it, will no longer be denied the pay that is rightfully theirs. In all, about one-third of salaried employees will be eligible for overtime pay under the new threshold, compared with a mere 7 percent currently.

Opponents of the new rules include retailers and low-wage employers who often require unpaid overtime from low-salaried employees. They have said that employers will cut base pay if forced to pay overtime, but that appears to be an idle threat, since pay cuts would be deeply unpopular with workers and would very likely create more turnover. If a business does not want to pay overtime, it could hold salaried employees to no more than 40 hours a week. Or it could hire new people to do work previously performed by those who put in unpaid overtime. Alternatively, it could raise the pay of salaried workers above the new threshold, and thus be exempt from the overtime rule.

The Labor Department originally proposed a new threshold of $50,440, which would have accounted more fully for inflation. That proposal also called for annual updates to the threshold; the final rule calls for adjustment every three years. These changes were made to respond to objections from low-wage employers, mostly in Southern states, who said the new rules would be too onerous.

Because the rule has been issued near the end of the Obama administration, Republican leaders in Congress could try to use end-of-session maneuvers that would let them vote next year to repeal it. A repeal would be vetoed if a Democrat won the White House, but it is unclear what the presumed Republican nominee, Donald Trump, would do. For now, in a rare victory for fair pay, the new rules are on their way to becoming a reality.

If American voters replace Ryan-stooges like John Katko (NY-24) in November, with progressives like Eric Kingson, even if Trump winds up as president, he won't be able to use that maneuver. And there's no doubt that Trump, Hillary or whomever, Kingson, will be unrelenting in his fight for working class families-- in Central New York and across the country. Last night he told us that "Raising the overtime threshold from $23,660 to $47,476 is good policy, good economics and good for the country. On December 1, 4.2 million white collar workers will become eligible for time-and-a-half pay when working more than 40 hours a week. That means more money in the hands of low-and moderate income workers, more money circulating in the economy and greater reward for working long hours. Though not appreciated by Speaker Ryan who immediately announced that he will fight the overtime rule, it’s long past time to restore the rights of working people, relative to corporate profits and billionaire greed. President Obama’s directive to the Department of Labor is a modest step in the right direction. It fits well with other changes that would reward hard work and address unsustainable economic inequality-- a $15 minimum wage, paid family leave, Medicare for All, closing the gender wage gap and supporting unions."

Steve Knight, represents California's 25th congressional district that runs from Simi Valley through Santa Clarita and out into the Antelope Valley. He's a union-hating Tea Party extremist who can be counted on by Ryan to back his efforts to thwart expansion of overtime eligibility. The progressive Democrat running against him this year is Lou Vince, a union member himself. Yesterday Lou told us why he's enthusiastic about Obama's rule change on this. "During the 1950s and 1960s, overtime allowed Americans to thrive and achieve their American dream. Labor unions and overtime pay are the two biggest contributors to allowing a vibrant middle class to exist. I'm proud to stand with the President as he expands eligibility for overtime, allowing over 4 million Americans to earn more money and stimulate our economy. Given Congressman Knight's willingness to vote against the residents of the 25th district on all sorts of issues, I'm proud to embrace this initiative and promise to defend it once elected to Congress. With our growing income inequality and stagnating wages, we need to make sure we support our American workers and allow them to earn a decent living. As the only middle-class challenger to Congressman Knight this cycle, I understand this issue on a personal level and will be steadfast in my support."

Pat Murphy is the progressive Democrat running against reactionary multimillionaire Rod Blum is northeast Iowa. The former Speaker of the state House who pushed through an agenda centered on working families, Murphy is a big supporter of the new rule. "Too many employers are abusing loopholes to avoid overtime rules. The administration is right to expand overtime protections to millions more workers to ensure employees get fair pay for their work. This will have have a major impact on working families here in Northeast Iowa. In Congress, I will keep working to raise the minimum wage and pass paycheck fairness."Please consider helping progressive congressional candidates like Eric Kingson, Pat Murphy, Lou Vince and DuWayne Gregory beat obstructionists like Katko and King.

The New Dems Invade Iowa, Cutting Social Security The Goal

The Democratic congressional primary in Iowa-- unrelated to the presidential caucuses so long, long, long ago-- take place June 6, just a couple days over a month from now, June 7. The most important House race in the state is for the 1st district-- the northeast corner of the state, including Dubuque, Cedar Rapids, Waterloo, Marshalltown, Deborah, Independence and Osage. Obama won the district both times, 58-40% against McCain and 56-42% against Romney, a race that saw him pick up 17 of the districts 20 counties, losing only in sparsely populated Benton, Delaware and Iowa counties.

Pat Murphy, the former very progressive and very successful Speaker of the Iowa House of Representatives is being challenged by the DCCC which recruited a wealthy "former" Republican, Monica Vernon who has already self-funded $125,800 into her scurrilous campaign and is being supported by all the usual suspects the DCCC rounds up for it's corrupt conservative candidates, from the New Dems and EMILY's List to the astroturf DCCC/DSCC off-shoot, the misnamed "End Citizens United."

In fact, the New Dems, at the urging of the DCCC, recently endorsed a whole slew of corrupt, right-of-center candidates, Vernon being only one of the more despicable of the batch, the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. So Vernon isn't just a new Dem in terms of being a Republican who switched her registration, but also being a New Dem, Congress' worst and most blatant shills of Wall Street, which finances their careers. In fact, the Finance Sector has already given Vernon $81,575, more than any other incumbent contesting a House seat this cycle.

I was happy to see Pat's campaign push back against the corruption everyone sees coming down the road if Vernon gets the nomination and manages to beat GOP incumbent Rod Blum. This week, he sent this note to his supporters in Iowa:

Monica Vernon was recently endorsed by The New Democratic Coalition, a pro-business group of politicians that supports the Simpson Bowles proposal to raise the retirement age, cut benefits for Social Security and Medicare and increase out of pocket costs to seniors for medical care.

At Friday's 1st District Democratic Congressional Debate in Vinton, Pat Murphy called on Monica Vernon to release her completed questionnaire to let voters know where she stands.

Pat Murphy issued the following statement "Voters in the 1st District know where I stand. I oppose right-wing budget gimmicks that cut benefits to seniors through Social Security and Medicare. I have a proud record of standing for our seniors and our workers and I'll always stand with them in Congress."

Murphy Campaign Manager Mike McLaughlin added "Monica Vernon has supported Republicans through the 90's and 2000's through their attempts to privatize Social Security and turn Medicare into a voucher program. Now she touts the endorsement or pro-business politicians who will continue these reckless policies that hurt Iowa's seniors."

If saving and expanding Social Security is important to you, please consider helping Pat Murphy defeat first Vernon and then Blum. You'll find his grassroots campaign by tapping the thermometer:

The New Dems Have A List Of The Next Batch Of Congressional Sell-Outs And Corporate Shills-- Their 2016 Endorsements

Yesterday at this time, we looked at some of the so-called "Democrats" in Congress who are willing to sell out Social Security and Medicare and other programs that make up the safety net. Who are these people and why aren't they Republicans? Well, most of them are from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party, the Wall Street-owned New Dems or the shriveled Blue Dog caucus. And yesterday the Blue Dogs announced 9 more congressional candidates running as Democrats, who will be the next in line to vote with the Republicans and betray Democratic Party values and principles at every turn. We've been writing about several of them-- warning Democratic primary voters-- all year. First the list of the 9 new New Dems:

• Isadore Hall, the most corrupt legislator in Sacramento, a tool of Big Gas and Oil and the tobacco and gambling lobbyists.
• Darren Soto, who wants to take over the Alan Grayson Orlando seat and turn it into a corporate stronghold.
• Monica Vernon, a conservative Iowa Republican who now claims to be a Democrat.
• Val Demings, the picture of political incompetence from central Florida.
• Kathleen Matthews, the rich lobbyist wife of MSNBC's worst anchor, Chris Matthews.
• Lou Correa, a corrupt career politician, who Democratic consultant Chris Crotty pointed out to me is "as far right as you can be in California without being a Republican."
• Salud Carabajal, the establishment candidate chosen by the Santa Barbara establishment and furiously trying to pass himself off as a progressive and as the next term of Lois Capps, herself "an honorary New Dem, whatever that means.
• LuAnn Bennett, a real estate developer and the former wife of crooked ex-Rep. Jim Moran.
• Matt Heinz, a moderate ex-state Rep. from Arizona, easily the least heinous of the New Dem endorsees so far this year election cycle.

This motley batch are decidedly not from the Elizabeth Warren/Bernie Sanders wing of the party. They are all... well, New Dems, where corruption is valued as a positive trait-- they call it "being practical"-- and the height of success is signing on to the Republican agenda. Who opposes minimum wage hikes? Who's against expanding Social Security? Who wants to weaken the already way-too-weak Dodd-Frank consumer protections? Who admires the payday lending industry and the private insurance industry and will move heaven and earth to protect Wall Street fraud? Yes... the NEW DEMS! This is the home of crooks and frauds like Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Patrick Murphy, Joe Crowley, Ami Bera, Gregory Meeks, Kathleen Rice, Kyrsten Sinema, John Delaney, Sean Patrick Maloney... the Democrats who get Wall Street money in return for helping allow John Boehner and now Paul Ryan call their horrific agenda "bipartisan."

Not only are Kathleen Matthews, Monica Vernon, Isadore Hall, Salud Carabajal, Lou Correa, Val Demings and Darren Soto especially ghastly candidates, all of them have significant primaries from progressives running in the same districts-- respectively Jamie Raskin, Pat Murphy, Nanette Barragán, Bill Ostrander, Bao Nguyen, Bob Poe and Susannah Randolph. Several of the newly minted New Dems applied for endorsements from the Congressional Progressive Caucus and all were turned down, several submitting questionnaires that reflected a lack of understanding about what a progressive even is. Soto, a tool of Big Sugar, was one of them and the members were so horrified that they quickly endorsed his opponent, Susannah Randolph, who formerly worked as Grayson's district director. Last night Susannah told us that she's "proud of my consistent record of fighting for strong Democratic and progressive values and will continue to do so once elected to Congress."

DINO Monica Vernon is one of the worst of the fake Dems being pushed by conservatives. And she's up against one of the best progressive Democrats running anywhere in the country, former Iowa House Speaker, Pat Murphy, who laughed when we told him the New Dems had endorsed his opponent. He spends most of his time campaigning against the crackpot GOP multimillionaire incumbent, Rod Blum (the one who lied to Iowans by telling them he would donate half his salary to charities and then reneging) but he told us that he's "proud of my long record of progressive accomplishments for the people of Iowa. I first registered as a Democrat in 1977 and have been active in the party ever since. In the legislature I expanded access to healthcare for women and children, I passed collective bargaining, I increased the minimum wage and teacher pay, and I stood up for equality by passing an LGBT Civil Rights bill and defending marriage equality. It's no surprise Monica Vernon was endorsed by the New Democrats. Joining the party just recently as a former supporter of Phil Gramm and George Bush, she really is a new Democrat in more ways than one. But that's not who I am; in 2014 Republicans tried to attack me saying I was an FDR Democrat-- it was the nicest thing a Republican as ever said about me! In Congress, I'll keep fighting for the progressive values that make our party, and our country, strong."

Bao Nguyen, the openly gay and openly Bernie-supporting Mayor of Garden Grove contrasted his own progressive activism with Correa's career-long conservatism. "While my opponents are rounding up endorsements from the same groups that support the TPP and other corporate interests, the people are sick and tired of waiting for real progress in Washington. From tackling climate change to achieving full equality for the LGBT community, to protecting Social Security and Medicare, this grassroots campaign is about fighting the very same moneyed interests that my opponents seem to so eager to receive endorsements from."

When people talk about a battle for the soul of the Democratic Party this is very much what it comes down to. The New Dems epitomize corporate corruption in Washington and the Democratic Party move away from progressive values that Thomas Frank has so thoroughly investigated in his insightful new book, Listen Liberal-- What Ever Happened To The Party of The People?. Voting for New Dems and their candidates is like voting for Republicans who might not be anti-Choice or anti-gay but who are, in most other ways, right-wingers.

Listen to what author and legal scholar Michelle Alexander told Chris Hayes last week on MSNBC about what Bernie's political revolution is and why she endorsed it. Needless to say, all of the New Dems are the antithesis of what she's talking about:



The polar opposite of the utter worthlessness of the New Dem endorsements yesterday was this morning's announcement in the NY Times that Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley had endorsed Bernie for president.

In 2008, Blue America back the very progressive Speaker of the Oregon state House for a U.S. Senate run. Jeff Merkley was a candidate Amato, Digby and I all strongly agreed would make an extraordinary senator, guided by a strong sense of progressive values and principles that came from his life's experience, not from political calculation or expediency. His background, like ours, was working class and we recognized a kindred soul when we sat down with him. Right from the very beginning, he lived up to his promise, unlike so many others (take Jon Tester, for example, who have disappointed). ProgressivePunch grades him a strong "A" on his crucial vote score this session and for his entire career. And today-- in an OpEd in the NY Times-- he explained why he was endorsing Bernie for president, the first U.S. Senator to do so.

After considering the biggest challenges facing our nation and the future I want for my children and our country, I have decided to become the first member of the Senate to support my colleague Bernie Sanders for president.

I grew up in working-class Oregon. On a single income, my parents could buy a home, take a vacation and help pay for college. My father worked with his hands as a millwright and built a middle-class life for us.

My parents believed in education and they believed in the United States. When I was young, my father took me to the grade school and told me that if I went through those doors, and worked hard, I could do just about anything because we lived in America. My dad was right.

Years later, my family and I still live in the same working-class community I grew up in. But America has gone off track, and the outlook for the kids growing up there is a lot gloomier today than 40 years ago.

Many middle-class Americans are working longer for less income than decades ago, even while big-ticket expenses like housing, health care and college have relentlessly pushed higher.

It is not that America is less wealthy than 40 years ago-- quite the contrary. The problem is that our economy, both by accident and design, has become rigged to make a fortunate few very well off while leaving most Americans struggling to keep up.

And as economic power has become more concentrated, so too has political power. Special interests, aided by their political and judicial allies, have exercised an ever-tighter grip on our political system, from the rise of unlimited, secret campaign spending to a voter suppression movement.

...Bernie Sanders is boldly and fiercely addressing the biggest challenges facing our country.

He has opposed trade deals with nations that pay their workers as little as a dollar an hour. Such deals have caused good jobs to move overseas and undermined the leverage of American workers to bargain for a fair share of the wealth they create in our remaining factories.

He has passionately advocated for pivoting from fossil fuels to renewable energy to save our planet from global warming-- the greatest threat facing humanity. He recognizes that to accomplish this we must keep the vast bulk of the world’s fossil fuels in the ground.

Bernie is a determined leader in taking on the concentration of campaign cash from the mega-wealthy that is corrupting the vision of opportunity embedded in our Constitution.

And he has been unflinching in taking on predatory lending, as well as the threats to our economy from high-risk strategies at our biggest banks.

It has been noted that Bernie has an uphill battle ahead of him to win the Democratic nomination. But his leadership on these issues and his willingness to fearlessly stand up to the powers that be have galvanized a grass-roots movement. People know that we don’t just need better policies, we need a wholesale rethinking of how our economy and our politics work, and for whom they work.

The first three words of the Constitution, in bold script, are “We the People.” The American story is a journey of continuous striving to more fully realize our founding principles of hope and opportunity for all.

It is time to recommit ourselves to that vision of a country that measures our nation’s success not at the boardroom table, but at kitchen tables across America. Bernie Sanders stands for that America, and so I stand with Bernie Sanders for president.

Integrity is a lonely place in a Senate dominated by Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer

TPP And American Job Loss

Every incumbent and candidate running for Congress pays lip service to jobs, jobs, jobs. But many of them support trade policies that send jobs, jobs, jobs to low-wage, anti-labor union hell holes abroad. Last June, fast track authority for the TPP narrowly passed in Congress, 218-209. 190 Republicans and 28 Democrats voted for it. Blue America is backing candidates campaigning against TPP supporters in both parties, namely

• Tim Canova vs Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL-23)
• Lou Vince vs Steve Knight (CA-25)
• Alan Grayson vs DeSantis and David Jolly (FL-Sen)
• Carol Shea-Porter vs Frank Guinta (NH-01)
• Duwayne Gregory vs Peter King (NY-02)
• Pat Murphy vs Rod Blum (IA-01)
• Dave McTeague vs Kurt Schrader (OR-05)
• Paul Clements vs Fred Upton (MI-06)

Yesterday the Economic Policy Institute released an extensive report on how transpartisan corporate trade policies have been toxic for American workers and how the looming dozen TPP-- being shoved down our throats by both parties' establishments-- could be the worst of all. One of the key points is that the dozen-country agreement will do nothing to restrict the kind of currency manipulation that has driven the deficit between the U.S. and the TPP partners, which translated to a loss of 2 million American jobs (over half in the manufacturing sector).

Currency manipulation acts like a subsidy to the exports of the manipulating country, and a tax on U.S. exports to every country where U.S. exports compete with the currency manipulator’s exports. In this way, currency manipulation increases U.S. imports, suppresses U.S. exports, and inflates U.S. trade deficits. As past EPI research has shown, currency-manipulation-fueled trade deficits have reduced U.S. gross domestic product (GDP), eliminated millions of U.S. jobs, driven down U.S. wages, and propelled the outsourcing of U.S. jobs to currency manipulators.

Many members of the proposed TPP, including Malaysia, Singapore, and Japan, are known currency manipulators. Others, namely Vietnam, appear to be following the lead of currency manipulators by, for example, acquiring excess foreign exchange reserves to depress the value of their currency. Currency manipulation explains a substantial share of the large, persistent U.S. trade deficit with the 11 other TPP countries that has not only cost millions of U.S. jobs but also increased income inequality and put downward pressure on American wages.



Many members of the proposed TPP, including Malaysia, Singapore, and Japan, are known currency manipulators. Others, namely Vietnam, appear to be following the lead of currency manipulators by, for example, acquiring excess foreign exchange reserves to depress the value of their currency. Currency manipulation explains a substantial share of the large, persistent U.S. trade deficit with the 11 other TPP countries that has not only cost millions of U.S. jobs but also increased income inequality and put downward pressure on American wages. We can’t afford a trade agreement that not only allows but would intensify these harmful trends:

• The $177.9 billion U.S. goods trade deficit with the 11 other TPP countries reduced U.S. GDP by $284.6 billion (1.6 percent) and eliminated 2 million jobs in 2015.

• The 2 million jobs lost due to the U.S. goods trade deficit with TPP member countries in 2015 included 418,900 direct jobs in commodity and manufacturing industries that competed with unfairly traded goods from TPP member countries.

• The currency-manipulation-fueled trade deficit with TPP countries in 2015 was also responsible for the loss of 847,200 indirect jobs in supplier industries, and an additional 759,700 “respending” jobs. These lost respending jobs are jobs that-- in a U.S. economy still suffering from low demand-- would have been supported by the wages of workers who would have had jobs were trade with the TPP member countries balanced.

• The U.S. trade deficit with TPP member countries in 2015 cost 1,057,200 manufacturing jobs (52.2 percent of the jobs lost due to the U.S. trade deficit with TPP member countries). Within manufacturing, by far the largest losses occurred in motor vehicles and parts, which lost 738,300 jobs (36.4 percent of total jobs lost). Other manufacturing industries with large losses include apparel (181,900 jobs lost or displaced, equal to 9 percent of total jobs lost) and computer and electronic parts (163,900 jobs, or 8.1 percent).

• The U.S. trade deficit with TPP member countries was also responsible for significant job losses outside of manufacturing in 2015. Industries that lost jobs include health care and social assistance (204,200 jobs, 10.1 percent); retail trade (142,800 jobs, 7 percent); accommodation and food services (101,800 jobs, 5 percent); finance and insurance (42,700 jobs, 2.1 percent); agricultural industries (41,600 jobs, 2.1 percent), and education services (37,300 jobs, 1.8 percent).

• Each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia lost jobs due to the U.S. trade deficit with TPP member countries in 2015. Net job losses were greatest in California, which lost 227,500 jobs (constituting 1.38 percent of total state employment). Michigan experienced the greatest jobs lost as a share of state employment (5.12 percent).

• In the 10 hardest-hit states (jobs lost as a share of all state jobs), the share of jobs lost due to the U.S. trade deficit with the TPP countries in 2015 ranged from 1.83 percent to 5.12 percent of total state employment.

• Seven of the 10 states with the highest job losses (as a share of total employment) are in the Midwest or Southeast, in states where manufacturing (especially of motor vehicles and parts) predominates: Michigan (214,600 jobs lost, equal to 5.12 percent)... In the 20 congressional districts with the largest shares of jobs lost, net losses ranged from 11,400 to 26,200 jobs, and jobs lost as a share of overall employment ranged from 3.89 percent to 7.66 percent. Michigan had 10 districts in the top 20 job-losing districts.

We asked Paul Clements, the progressive Democrat running for the southwest Michigan seat Fred Upton occupies how he and Upton differ on trade policies. The multimillionaire Republican, whose own family's business (Whirlpool) devastated the area's economy by moving its factories to other countries, has been one of Congress' most loud spoken advocates of off-shoring and outsourcing. He told us that "Poorly negotiated trade deals forced good paying American jobs overseas-- NAFTA alone has cost this country nearly 700,000 jobs.  These are good, family-sustaining jobs with benefits and pensions that boost the middle class, but they are sent abroad by the same people who fund Fred Upton's campaigns, then get richer themselves. The TPP is going to be bad for the average person in Michigan and bad for the country. That's why I would vote against it as a member of Congress."

As you can see from the maps below, southwest Michigan (and neighboring northern Indiana) are among the worst victims of the kind of currency manipulation that leads to job losses. Another 9,700 jobs were lost in Upton's district last year.

Another example of a progressive Democrat challenging a Republican who voted for this is Pat Murphy's race against corporate tool Rod Blum in northeast Iowa. Last year the district lost another 5,100 jobs to bad trade policies. Pat, the former Speaker of Iowa's state House of Representatives, told us that "Due to free trade we lost 750 jobs in Marshalltown 2 years ago, so I know the negative affects of these policies firsthand. We need to get rid of trade policies that export jobs  to low wage countries and lowering the quality of living for working class Americans. I am strongly against all Free-Trade proposals including the TPP. In Congress, unlike Congressman Blum, I will work to protect our workers and our jobs."

He has a primary against a corporate shill and "ex"-Republican the DCCC is pushing, Monica Vernon. She doesn't have a record on trade but she has a record of making contributions to the Republicans who voted for all the bad policies. I asked Pat about it and he knew just what I mean. "Throughout my life," he said, "I have worked to support candidates and causes that protect Iowa's working families, while my primary opponent, Monica Vernon has supported free-traders like Phil Gramm, Tom Latham and Republican candidates up and down the ballot."


When Fast Track Authority for the TPP came up in Congress last June, Peter King didn't join the 50 Republicans-- including New Yorkers John Katko, Chris Collins, Chris Gibson, Dan Donovan and Long Island's Lee Zeldin-- who stood up for their constituents instead of the special interests who were pushing another in a series of dysfunctional corporate trade pacts that have cost his own parts of Nassau and Suffolk counties thousands of jobs. "Congressman King’s votes last summer for Trade Promotion Authority jeopardized American jobs, plain and simple," said Suffolk County Legislature Presiding Officer DuWayne Gregory, who is challenging U.S. Rep. Peter King in New York’s 2nd Congressional District. "NAFTA cost New York more than 56,000 jobs, yet my opponent was willing to sacrifice Congress’s power to amend a trade deal whose signatories represent 40 percent of the world’s GDP. What does that mean for his constituents? It means Peter King simply can’t be trusted to protect Long Island jobs."

Up in New Hampshire, Carol Shea-Porter is well on the way to winning her seat back from Tea Party nut Frank Guinta, who never met a corporate trade policy he didn't love, despite the fact that another 3,400 people lost their jobs to these corporate trade policies last year alone. He was eager to vote for Fast Track and that puts him at odds with the working families of New Hampshire and with Carol. When we asked her a few hours ago, she told us that "As a member of the House Trade Working Group while serving in Congress, I worked on promoting fair trade policies. I support the export of goods and services, not jobs. I never voted for any trade agreement because they were never fair. Bad trade agreements hurt workers, they hurt Main Street businesses, and they hurt our economy."



Blue America was very excited to learn this week that Oregon progressives finally have a legitimate candidate to run against head Blue Dog and TPP booster Kurt Schrader! Dave McTeague, who served 10 years in the state legislature was inspired to jump into the congressional race by Bernie, who he has endorsed, just started campaigning. He told me last night that on February 16th he attended Schrader’s local town hall meeting where he indicated his support for the TPP "saying it was 'good on the labor side,' which is flatly contradicted by an AFL-CIO report recently issued. After I cited Public Citizen’s Trade Watch report concerning weak environmental  provisions, Mr. Schrader discounted the opposition, saying they were predisposed to oppose the TPP. Schrader's Blue Dogs provided the key votes for the Fast Track approval process, preventing Congress from making changes to the TPP that was negotiated in secret. The TPP raises alarming issues: giving power to multinationals to challenge labor and environmental laws in any TPP countries; biased three member tribunals deciding cases, no standing for workers or unions to bring disputes forward; opening up U.S. markets to goods made in countries with extremely poor labor standards and little to no rights to organize an independent trade union; and so much more. Somebody has to challenge this; which is why I've joined the political revolution that Sen. Sanders has called and decided to challenge Schrader  (a four term Blue Dog Democrat) in Oregon's 5th District Democratic primary."

 

The first time I spoke with Tim Canova, last year, he wanted to talk about the TPP and the fact that his congresswoman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, was one of the paid-off Democrats who backs it. Tim called it "a gift to giant corporations that undermines both our national sovereignty and our constitutional framework. Its investor rights provisions would allow wealthy investors to challenge our national, state, and local laws as infringements on their anticipated future profits. These cases would not be decided in U.S. courts but by arbitration judges who regularly represent these same corporations in similar cases. This is exactly what’s been happening under similar provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). For instance, TransCanada, an energy giant, recently announced that it would sue the U.S. for $15 billion under these NAFTA provisions for President Obama’s decision not to move forward with the Keystone XL pipeline. TPP would expand these investor rights provisions to a dozen countries, thereby undermining laws intended to protect our public health and safety and the environment by shifting the costs of compliance from big corporations to taxpayers. Food labelling laws, such as labelling for genetically-modified organisms (GMOs), would be certainly be challenged, as would a host of measures intended to address climate change. The TPP would also undermine U.S. labor standards and speed up the outsourcing of American jobs to countries that do not respect the most basic human rights and labor rights of their own citizens. In addition, the TPP threatens to raise the price of prescription drugs and other medicines by giving big pharmaceutical corporations new monopoly rights to keep lower cost generic drugs off the market."

Please consider contributing to the campaigns of the progressives who are opposing TPP; you can find the ones endorsed by Blue America on this page.

I Got An Email FromThe Right-Wing Husband Of This Year's Worst "Democratic" Candidate

Democrat Pat Murphy and his conservative primary opponent

Yesterday, I got an e-mail from Bill Vernon, a right-wing Republican who is backing the vile EMILY's List/DCCC conservative running for the Democratic congressional nomination in Iowa's first district. His wife, a Republican campaign donor who opportunistically switched party registration, is running against tried and tested progressive, former Iowa House Speaker Pat Murphy. (Murphy has been endorsed by Blue America and you can contribute to his campaign here.) The wife, Monica Vernon, has been named the worst election cycle spammer and pest of the 2016 cycle so far, often bothering people on the lists she bought from the DCCC and EMILY's List with 4 and 5 idiotic, contentless e-mails per day begging for money.

The one from her right-wing, anti-Choice, anti-regulation, anti-LGBT, pro-NRA husband Bill is typical:

Did you know that my wife Monica’s very first budget deadline of this year is tomorrow? She and her campaign team are working such long hours to make sure she wins her primary and defeats Rod Blum. They need to hit their fundraising goal tomorrow night and I want to do everything I can to help.

...Monica is so ready to beat Rod Blum in November-- she knows she can do it. But her campaign runs on grassroots support from people like you, and if you forget to give, she risks falling short and leaving gaps in her campaign budget.

I’m very proud of how far Monica has come, and this first deadline of the election year couldn’t be more important.

Vernon has contributed thousands and thousands of dollars to Republican candidates and Republican committees and has only ever contributed to one Democrat-- and a fake Democrat at that-- his wife Monica. He wrote two checks to his wife's campaign for $2,700 each, on March 30, 2015, the same week he wrote a check to the National Republican Senatorial Committee for $1,000. I wonder what the Democrats from the DCCC and EMILY's List mailing lists he contacted yesterday would think if they saw these contributions.

• Republican Party of Iowa- $5,000
• Republican Party of Iowa- $5,000
• Republican Party of Iowa- $5,000
• Republican Party of Iowa- $5,000
• Republican Party of Iowa- $5,000
• Republican Party of Iowa- $5,000
• Republican Party of Iowa- $5,000
• Republican Party of Iowa- $5,000
• Republican Party of Iowa- $2,000
• John McCain- $1,000
• Greg Ganske- $1,000
• Greg Ganske- $1,000
• Republican Party of Iowa- $1,000
• Jim Lightfoot- $1,000
• National Republican Senatorial Committee- $1,000
• Republican Party of Iowa- $1,000
• George W. Bush- $1,000
• Greg Ganske- $1,000
• Greg Ganske- $1,000
• Greg Ganske- $1,000
• Greg Ganske- $1,000
• Tom Latham- $1,000
• Chuck Grassley- $1,000
• Republican Party of Iowa- $1,000
• Greg Ganske- $500
• Greg Ganske- $500
• Tom Latham- $500
• Tom Latham- $500
• Republican Party of Iowa- $500
• Republican Party of Iowa- $500
• Republican Party of Iowa- $500
• Republican Party of Iowa- $500
• Republican Party of Iowa- $500
• Chuck Grassley- $500
• Chuck Grassley- $500
• Chuck Grassley- $500
• RNC- $500
• RNC- $500
• Jim Leach- $500
• Jim Leach- $500
• Republican Party of Iowa- $500
• George W. Bush- $500
• Republican Party of Iowa- $500
• Republican Party of Iowa- $500
• Republican Party of Iowa- $500
• Republican Party of Iowa- $500
• Republican Party of Iowa- $500
• Republican Party of Iowa- $500
• Republican Party of Iowa- $500
• Republican Party of Iowa- $500
• Republican Party of Iowa- $500
• Republican Party of Iowa- $500
• Republican Party of Iowa- $500
• Republican Party of Iowa- $500
• Tom Tauke- $500
• Tom Tauke- $500
• Chuck Grassley- $500
• Republican Party of Iowa- $500

And those are just the contributions over $500. There are also thousands of dollars in contributions of $400 and $250 to GOP candidates and committees all over the country, from Paul Ryan to Jim Nussle and Ben Lange. Monica also gave to Tom Latham as well as to right-wing extremist Phil Gramm. Just think of all the damage those thousands or dollars did to Iowa Democrats!

Yes, Bill is "very proud" of how far Monica has come... pulling the wool over Democrats' eyes with the help of EMILY's List, Steve Israel and Ben Ray Luján.

Iowa's first congressional district-- Dubuque, Waterloo, Cedar Falls, Cedar Rapids, Marshalltown-- has a PVI of D+5 and has no need to draft a conservative Republican-lite like Vernon. Obama won there in 2008 with 58% and in 2012 with 56%. Steve Israel has been running around hissing into the ears of anyone who will listen and bear his shit-breath that the Democratic nominee, former Iowa House Speaker Pat Murphy, was lazy and didn't work hard enough to win. Israel's problem with Murphy, though, is that Murphy-- who is anything but lazy-- is an unabashed progressive with a spectacular record of leadership on progressive issues in the state legislature-- the kind of record that makes a viper like Israel shed his skin. He told Ben Ray Luján, who he's directing as DCCC Chair, to jump on Vernon, who is wealthy, conservative, without any sense of mission outside of careerism... exactly the kind of easily corruptible candidate Israel loves.

What does Vernon stand for? Well, nothing whatsoever, except a belief in her own destiny to hold higher office. At a meeting with a labor union she was asked if she supports the Keystone XL Pipeline and her response was basically that if they endorsed her she would back it or oppose it depending on what they wanted. (They declined to endorse her.) She's a classic political opportunist. Meanwhile, the EMILY's List hacks are lying bout Pat Murphy's record, trying to make it sound like Iowa's most determined progressive is less a champion of their own Republican-lite candidate, who may or may not be pro-Choice. Who really even knows? Here's Pat's actual record, for which EMILY's List, Rove-like, is attacking him:

1990 - Votes to require insurance coverage for newborns and well-baby care for first 6 months

1991 - Sponsors universal healthcare plan

1992 - Sponsors mandatory maternity leave bill

1995 - Co-sponsors Equal Rights Amendment Bill

1996 - Votes to make sure child care workers checked against sex offender registry

1997 - Again co-sponsors Equal Rights Amendment Bill

1998 - Votes for low income tax credit

1998 - Votes for increase to child tax credit

1999 - Advocates using tobacco trust fund money to increase medicaid reimbursements

2000 - Votes to prevent insurers from denying contraceptive coverage

2000 - Sponsors equal pay law

2000 - Sponsors bill to provide unemployment for women who miss work because of domestic violence

2002 - Writes Hawk-I bill to cover uninsured kids

2006 - Votes to increase the minimum wage

2007 - As Speaker, he has the Iowa House increase the minimum wage

2007 - Votes to establish pre-kindergarten in Iowa

2007 - Votes to increase the earned income tax credit for all families

2008 - Worked to keep sex offenders away from daycare centers

2008 - Votes to extend health insurance coverage to all Iowa kids by 2011

2009 - As Speaker, he has the Iowa House pass nation’s first equal pay law

2006-2010 - As Speaker, stops every attempt by right wing conservatives to affect women’s healthcare choices

Most of these accomplishments were from the time Monica and Bill were relentlessly campaigning against Democrats and funding right-wing anti-Choice fanatics. Have you ever contributed to EMILY's List or the DCCC? Here's where you can contribute to Pat Murphy's campaign.

Smug GOP Congressman, Adam Kinzinger, Stokes The Flames Of Hatred During Colorado Springs Terrorism

It wasn't Fox, but CNN thant invited Republican Congressman Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) to come on the air and denounce Planned Parenthood while Robert Dear was still inside a Colorado Planned Parenthood facility-- that has been targeted by right-wing extremists many times-- shooting people. Maybe Kinzinger, who had been rumored earlier this year to be having an affair with disgraced GOP ex-congressman and best-bud Aaron Schock, should learn to shut his pretty face. CNN didn't mention that it was patently false, self-serving political statements by anti-Choice extremists like Carly Fiorina, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Trumpf that are "controversial," but that Planned Parenthood is! The idiot anchor went so far as to claim-- with Kinzinger agreeing-- that "we don't know if Planned Parenthood was targeted" while the murderer was still inside the Planned Parenthood clinic shooting people! Kinzinger:

best buds

If we find out he was not targeting Planned Parenthood, I would fully expect an apology from the Planned Parenthood director for saying that. But regardless, if somebody is targeting Planned Parenthood, it's not indicative of what folks that are opposed to some of the practices that Planned Parenthood commits, how we feel. We saw these barbaric videos and that was something that many of us had a legitimate concern about. That doesn't mean we're going to take guns and walk into Planned Parenthood clinics. Obviously this is a person who has a mental health issue that's to some level psychotic and crazy and if he's targeting Planned Parenthood-- and, again, we don't know-- if he is, he has taken a legitimate disagreement with a practice and turned it into an evil response which is to go and shoot people. But again, we don't know that answer yet.

Kinzinger doesn't know if the gunman inside the Planned Parenthood clinic shooting people is targeting Planned Parenthood but he's already diagnosed the right-wing, anti-choice terrorist to be "crazy" and "psychotic." If the anchor wasn't brain-dead she might have asked him if the suicide bombers from Arab countries, who, do after all, have grievances are also psychotic and if being crazy excuses them from being called "terrorists."

Obama's statement was quite a bit different from Kinzinger's:

The last thing Americans should have to do, over the holidays or any day, is comfort the families of people killed by gun violence-- people who woke up in the morning and bid their loved ones goodbye with no idea it would be for the last time.

And yet, two days after Thanksgiving, that’s what we are forced to do again.

We don’t yet know what this particular gunman’s so-called motive was for shooting twelve people, or for terrorizing an entire community, when he opened fire with an assault weapon and took hostages at a Planned Parenthood center in Colorado. What we do know is that he killed a cop in the line of duty, along with two of the citizens that police officer was trying to protect. We know that law enforcement saved lives, as so many of them do every day, all across America. And we know that more Americans and their families had fear forced upon them.

This is not normal. We can’t let it become normal. If we truly care about this-- if we’re going to offer up our thoughts and prayers again, for God knows how many times, with a truly clean conscience-- then we have to do something about the easy accessibility of weapons of war on our streets to people who have no business wielding them. Period. Enough is enough.

May God bless Officer Garrett Swasey and the Americans he tried to save-- and may He grant the rest of us the courage to do the same thing.

Kinzinger's north-central Illinois district, the sixteenth, would be competitive if Nancy Pelosi didn't keep appointing conservative incompetents-- Rahm Emanuel, Chris Van Hollen, Steve Israel and Steve Israel sock puppet Ben Ray Luján to chair the DCCC. Although part of the population base of the district, Rockford, was gerrymandered into IL-17 to give that district a Democratic edge, IL-16 is still winnable. In fact, in 2008, Obama did win it.

The DCCC didn't recruit a candidate in 2008 and GOP incumbent Don Manzullo beat Bob Abboud 60.9- 36.1%, even though Obama beat McCain there. In 2012 the DCCC once again didn't recruit a candidate. This time Obama lost to Romney but won in Winnebago, Putnam and DeKalb counties, while Kinzinger, who had narrowly beaten conservaDem Deborah Halverson 2 years earlier (57-43%) triumphed over Wanda Rohl 61.9- 38.1%, Kinzinger spending $1,972,830 to Rohl's $31,837. In 2014 the DCCC ignored the district again and Kinzinger was reelected against Randall Olsen 70.6-29.4%. Kinzinger spent $1,377,467 to Olsen's $11,506. You don't win, if you don't try and you never win if you allow the party to atrophy and fade away, as Van Hollen and Israel have both done. This cycle there is, once again, no DCCC recruit running against Kinzinger-- and not even an independent Democrat, just a teabagger, Colin McGroarty, challenging him from the far right. Kinzinger is Jeb Bush's Illinois co-chair.

Yes, innocent until proven guilty, but we already know they're both murderers

Alan Grayson issued a statement this morning that sounded nothing like Kinzinger's:

Yesterday, a homegrown terrorist attacked us on our own soil. He was not a Syrian refugee, and he was not a Muslim. We don’t know yet whether or not he attacked Planned Parenthood because he was anti-choice, or for some other reason.

But either way, today we are reminded of the continuing struggle to insure one of the most sacred rights-- the right to control our own bodies.

Earlier this year, I got a taste of what Planned Parenthood staff, volunteers, and patients face every day when dozens of anti-Planned Parenthood protesters came to demonstrate outside my office. And a few months later, when I attended a fundraiser for our local Planned Parenthood, protesters took pictures of one of my staff and put it up online as an intimidation tactic. Neither method worked.

I was talking with one of the Blue America candidates this morning, former marine and LAPD police officer, Lou Vince-- running in CA-25 against anti-Choice/pro-NRA extremist Steve Knight in northern L.A. and eastern Ventura counties. He told me that "the horrendous act of terrorism committed in Colorado against the Planned Parenthood clinic illustrates why this election is so critical. We must stand up for a woman's right to choose and her right to control her own body, a right that Republicans like Steve Knight want to take away. Secondly, we must stand up to the NRA and stop putting up with their woefully misguided lobbying efforts that ultimately contribute to so much violence. As a cop, I know a thing or two about guns and enough is enough, we need sensible gun control reforms. Unfortunately, these things will never happen with Steve Knight in Congress. It's time for him to go." I agree. We need fewer Kinzingers and fewer Knights and more level headed men and women like Lou Vince and Alan Grayson.


UPDATE From Iowa

Congressional candidate in northeast Iowa, Pat Murphy, put out a statement today too. "The recent news from Colorado Springs deeply saddens me. Yesterday, three victims were killed and nine injured when a gunman opened fire at a Planned Parenthood clinic. Attacks like these are extremely troubling and a heartbreaking reminder of how important it is to continue the fight for women's access to health care. We must stand with Planned Parenthood and show a united front against acts of violence and hatred like those of yesterday."

In reading that, it's important to recall that when Pat was Speaker of the Iowa state House, he led the successful fight to protect women's right to choice while expanding state family planning services and stem cell research so more life saving procedures could be done for medical research in his state. One of the reasons we originally endorsed Pat was because, while he was Speaker he led the successful battle to take gun rights away from individuals who were convicted of domestic abuse."

Yes, Conservatives-- Of Both Parties-- Hate Regulations That Protect Consumers

At the kiddie table debate last night Chris Christie took the first opportunity he got to attack Dodd-Frank, the legislation passed to protect consumers from banksters and other financial sector crooks That ad above, which debuted last night at the very first commercial break (and then ran again), part of a 4-week, $500,000 buy from the the shady American Action Network-- an extreme right-wing group founded by Nixon's Jew counter, Fred Malek-- is meant to stir up fear and emotions by lying about one of Wall Street's biggest bugaboos, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Republicans on the House Financial Services Committee, along with right-wing Democrats on the committee who work for Wall Street-- like Patrick Murphy (New Dem-FL), Kyrsten Sinema (Blue Dog-AZ), John Delaney (New Dem-DE), Gregory Meeks (New Dem-NY), David Scott (New Dem-GA) and Jim Himes (New Dem-CT)-- have been busy little bees working to chip away at Dodd-Frank protections, especially those that are part of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

The American Action Network ad smearing the CFPB elicited a message from Elizabeth Warren to her supporters. "I’m not surprised," she wrote, "that the big banks and Republicans are attacking me or the CFPB. After all, in just four years, the brand-new consumer agency has already forced the biggest financial companies to return more than $11 billion directly to the people they cheated. And even on Wall Street, $11 billion is real money. But I am surprised by just how bold and shameless these new attacks are." 

Wall Street has a problem: they know that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is working and that it’s incredibly popular with the families it helps. So the big banks are smart: $30,000 for a TV ad is nothing compared to the money they can save if their Republican buddies will go after the agency. And if they can soften up support for the CFPB, the Republicans will feel a little bit safer when they try to undercut the agency and rollback financial oversight during closed-door deals.

I’m a big girl, and I can take the personal attacks. But working families who need the CFPB can’t-- not when they’ve been crushed, squeezed and hammered by the big banks and their friends in Washington for years. It’s up to us to fight back.

Progressive Democrat Lou Vince is running for the House seat in Santa Clarita, Simi Valley and the Antelope Valley (CA-25) currently occupied by extremist anti-regulation fanatic Steve Knight, a devoted enemy to all rules and regulations that protect ordinary citizens from powerful business forces. "Republicans," Lou told us during the debate, "consistently show how they would rather side with Wall Street bankers that gamble with our money, rather than stand up for hard-working Americans. Congressman Steve Knight is no exception. He has voted for dismantling Dodd-Frank, the only thing protecting Americans from Wall Street fat cats. He has voted against the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the brainchild of Elizabeth Warren who stands up for the middle class against corporations who try to take advantage of American consumers. Rather than be another corporate shill like Congressman Knight, I want to go to DC and stand up to Wall Street and fight for ordinary Americans who want the system to be fair for everyone, not designed to make the top 1% even richer at the expense of everyone else."

Carol Shea-Porter is likely to win back her old seat in New Hampshire, currently held by crackpot extremist Frank Guinta. Unlike Guinta, she understands the importance of protecting families from the immense power of corporations and banksters. "I'm proud," she told us right after the debate, "that I voted for Dodd-Frank and the CFPB. The CFPB has helped millions of consumers resolve complaints concerning loans, credit cards, mortgages, etc. It exists to protect consumers and their money, which is why my opponent and his donors hate it and try to destroy it. In Congress, I fought to protect the CFPB, and I will continue to do that when I win next November."

Ruben Kihuen has been a strong progressive leader in the Nevada state legislature running for a blue-leaning seat held by anti-regulations extremist Cresent Hardy. He's the perfect antidote to bankster-allied conservatives like Hardy. He told us during the debate that "Congress is a club of the wealthy and elite and members like Rep. Cresent Hardy continue to vote to protect big corporations and special interests instead of hard working Americans. The latest attacks on Dodd-Frank and the CFPB is just another example of reckless Republicans protecting the corporations that elect them instead of their constituents. I am running for Congress to give a voice to working class families and fight to stop Wall Street's predatory practices."

Rod Blum is a multimillionaire shill of Wall Street sitting in a blue-leaning Iowa district. Former Iowa House Speaker, Pat Murphy, a strong and successful progressive disagrees with Blum's attempts to wreck Dodd-Frank. "This is the problem with Congressman Blum," he said during the debate. "He is voting to weaken Dodd-Frank and CFPB, weakening consumers against the big banks. We should be strengthening consumer laws by reinstating Glass-Stegall to avoid these crisises. Instead we are going to leave the foxes in charge of the chicken coop and Congress Blum is opening the door and saying 'enjoy lunch on me.'"

The most recent Blue America endorsee, Suffolk County Legislature Presiding Officer DuWayne Gregory (NY-02), is taking on arch deregulator and Wall Street pawn Peter King.  He told us that "The attempt by the Republicans to rollback Dodd-Frank has created significant risk for the taxpayers who have already picked up the tab for banks that are too big to fail. While my opponent has voted against the interests of the victims of the financial crisis, I will work to protect taxpayers and hold Wall Street accountable. I commend Senator Warren and Congressman Cummings for their leadership on this issue."

Paul Clements is the progressive Democrat running against crooked crony-capitalist Fred Upton in southwest Michigan. Upton has voted against every regulation that protects consumers, families and the environment. Upton's ideas are throwbacks to the 19th Century. Clements pointed out that "It's the big banks, big corporations, and the super-rich who have armies of lawyers and lobbyists and who make mega-campaign contributions. They were busy tilting the economic playing field in their direction for decades, before they crashed the economy in 2008. Dodd-Frank and the CFPB don’t go far enough to protect citizens and consumers-- we shouldn’t have banks too big to fail, and we need to get the big money out of politics-- but they are a start. Nevertheless, they were too much for Congressman Upton. Maybe if you are born into millions, consumer protection doesn’t seem so important. His votes against Dodd-Frank and to dismantle the CFPB fit with his general alliance with corporations and the super-rich over ordinary citizens. I would support them, and in Congress I will stand up for consumers’ rights and interests. We won’t get a level playing field unless someone does."

One of America's best investigative journalists, Lee Fang, writing for The Intercept yesterday noted that lobbyists are using ads during the debate to smear regulatory agencies investigating the crooked corporations writing their paychecks.

The advertisement portrays the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau as a roomful of bureacratic automatons mercilessly stamping “DENIED” on loan applications, beneath Soviet-style banners depicting CFPB’s director, Richard Cordray, and its principal architect, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, (D-Mass.).

But the ad does not disclose that the group sponsoring it is led by lobbyists for Navient, a student loan company that the CFPB is currently investigating for allegedly cheating student loan borrowers.

...The American Action Network, the sponsor of the advertisement, is led by a team of lobbyists employed to beat back consumer protection regulations on behalf of industry clients. American Action Network board member Vin Weber is a lobbyist at Mercury LLC, where he is registered to work as a Navient lobbyist. On his registration forms, Weber says he specifically works on matters related to the CFPB.

Weber’s colleague on the board, Tom Reynolds, is also a registered lobbyist for Navient through the law firm Nixon Peabody. And another American Action Network board member, Barry Jackson, works with Brownstein Hyatt Farber Shreck, a lobbying firm that serves a number of student loan and payday lending firms on issues relating to the CFPB.

Navient processes federal student loans and works to collect on student debt. Formerly known as Sallie Mae, Navient spun off as a separate company in 2014. The company says it is responsible for managing $300 billion in student loans.

In August, Navient informed investors that the CFPB, after a multi-year investigation of the firm, had found evidence that Navient is in violation of consumer protection laws and may soon face a lawsuit from the agency. Separate investigations have faulted Navient for misleading borrowers on a range of issues, while seeking to maximize penalties and late fees.

If you'd like to help House candidates who have pledged to protect consumers and the middle class from the banksters and other financial predators, you can do that right here.