This Post Might Help Save Your Life Today-- Sugar Really Does Kill

When I was diagnosed with cancer, the very first thing my doctor told me was that he could save my life but that I had to stop eating sugar. He asked me if I was willing. I agreed. There was a lot more after that, but stopping sugar consumption was the first step. Good news: there are healthy sweeteners-- replacements-- that are just as good, if not better: stevia, honey, fruit, agave... Bad news: like the tobacco industry, the sugar industry isn't giving up without a fight. Yesterday Business Insider covered a new report you might want to read before sitting down to dinner tonight.

For decades, sugar lobbyists have been taking aim at studies linking sugar and cancer.

When a study last year found that mice on sugar-heavy diets were more likely to develop breast cancer, the Sugar Association, one of the biggest sugar lobbying groups in the US, called it “sensationalized.” The group insists that “no credible link between ingested sugars and cancer has been established.”

But doctors and researchers claim the sugar industry may have been intentionally keeping research about that link from getting published.  A new study in the journal PLOS Biology reveals how the Sugar Association worked to suppress scientific findings on the harmful effects of table sugar on rodents nearly 50 years ago.

The report details the results of two unpublished studies, known as Project 259, which were funded by the sugar lobby in the late 1960s. Both involved research on the effects of feeding sugar to rats.

In the first study, one group of rats was fed a balanced diet of cereal, beans, fish and yeast, while the other rats were given a high-sugar diet. The researchers found that the sugar eaters were at greater risk for strokes, heart attacks and heart disease, and had higher-than-normal levels of fat (triglycerides) in their blood.

The second study compared sugar-fed rats with starch-fed rats and found that the sugar-eating rodents were more likely to have elevated levels of an enzyme associated with bladder cancer in humans.

None of that rodent research saw the light of day, though. The Sugar Research Foundation cut Project 259 short and didn’t publish any of the results.

"Our study contributes to a wider body of literature documenting industry manipulation of science," the researchers, who hail from the University of California San Francisco, wrote in their report.

In a statement, the Sugar Association denied that allegation, saying the new study is just "a collection of speculations and assumptions about events that happened nearly five decades ago, conducted by a group of researchers and funded by individuals and organizations that are known critics of the sugar industry."

"We reviewed our research archives and found documentation that the study in question ended for three reasons, none of which involved potential research findings: the study was significantly delayed; it was consequently over budget; and the delay overlapped with an organizational restructuring," the group said.

Not cocaine, not heroin-- more dangerous

But this is not the first time we’ve learned that ‘big sugar’ has gotten in the way of science. L ast year, some of the same researchers  found that the Sugar Research Foundation-- the former name of the Sugar Association-- paid off three Harvard scientists in 1967 to make sugar seem less unhealthy and suggest that fat was the problem in our diets instead.

"The kind of manipulation of research is similar to what the tobacco industry does," study co-author Stanton Glantz said in a release.

Decades of research on sugar since Project 259 have linked sugar consumption to a glut of serious health problems, including high cholesterol, heart disease, and kidney disease, to name a few.  Recent research also suggests that sugar may play a role in tumor growth, but scientists don't think it makes cancer grow faster, and still aren't certain whether sugar consumption has any link to cancer formation.

After years of fueling up on high-sugar, low fat foods, consumers are finally becoming wise to the problems with sugar that were hidden for so many years. And t he US Food and Drug Administration is, too-- by  2021 , all nutrition labels will have to include the percent daily value of added sugars for the first time, while the "calories from fat" column will get scrubbed.

Healthy eating, especially in schools, shouldn't be a political hot potato. But it is... very much so. Anyplace where vested interests and big money collide with progress you can count on an explosion. And few groups short of Wall Street, the Medical Industrial Complex, and the Military Industrial Complex have been as adapt as AgriBusiness in molding public policy to its own special interests. Since 1990 Big Sugar-- one component of AgriBusiness-- has poured $44,757,434 into congressional races. In addition, Big Sugar has spent an astronomical $8,895,736 on lobbying this year alone! And they're very strategic with their investments. Although they're on both sides of the aisle, most of their money goes to Republicans, Blue Dogs and other corrupt conservative Democrats. Big Sugar's contributions, thinly veiled bribes, have amounted to $25,136,746 for Democrats and $19,370,071 for Republicans. The bribes taken since 1990 by the ten biggest sugar whores currently serving in the House:

• Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)- $476,877
• Alcee Hastings (D-FL)- $291,500
• Frank Lucas (R-OK)- $261,000
• Mike Simpson (R-ID)- $233,750
• Mike Conaway (R-TX)- $222,050
• Marcy Kaptur (D-OH)- $197,299
• Sandy Levin (D-MI)- $174,521
• Tim Walz (D-MN)- $161,500
• Jim Costa (Blue Dog-CA)- $157,400
• Debbie Wasserman Schultz (New Dem-FL)- $148,450

So far this cycle, Big Sugar has added 9 members to their list of the biggest congressional bribe takers: Donald Bacon (R-NE), Neal Dunn (R-FL), Steve Scalise (R-LA), Jodey Arrington (R-TX), Jason Lewis (R-MN), Clay Higgins (R-LA), Roger Marshall (R-KS), Jimmy Panetta (D-CA) and Rodney Davis (R-IL).

Sugar's Missing From The New Cuba Reforms... Wasserman Schultz Is Smiling... And Counting Her Fat Bribes

By the 1860s Cuba was the chief sugar producer in the world and by the 1880s the US consumed most of Cuba’s exported sugar. In 1898, following the Spanish-American War, the US effectively acquired Cuba. The U.S. came close to annexing Cuba but sugar beet producers in Minnesota, North Dakota, Idaho, Michigan, Montana, Nebraska, Wyoming and Colorado were able to prevent it so that Cuban sugar wouldn't destroy their profits. By the time of the Cuban Revolution in 1959 the value of U.S. investments in Cuba was over three times that for all the rest of Latin America, with american companies owning about half of the country's sugar refineries. In the 1960s the embargo ended the sugar trade with the U.S. entirely. Sugarcane is still Cuba's top crop and number 1 export-- but not to the U.S., where Debbie Wasserman Schultz (New Dem-FL), Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL) and Ileana Ros Lehtinen (R-FL) have worked to keep U.S. consumer prices high on behalf of the domestic sugar industry that has financed both of their political careers. The three anti-Cuba reactionaries have effectively kept inexpensive Cuban sugar out of the U.S. and forced American consumers to spend billions of dollars more for food items that includes sugar.

Yesterday, President Obama issued a presidential directive on Cuba that seeks to cement his policy changes toward the island and encourage further engagement even after he leaves office. In another step towards normalization of relations, the administration released a sixth set of regulatory changes designed to enhance business and trade between the United States and Cuba. Under the new rules, which go into effect Monday, travelers can purchase unlimited quantities of Cuban rum and cigars in any country where they are sold so long as they are for personal consumption.

Obama also called on Congress to end the dysfunctional 50-year-old economic embargo, something Wasserman Schultz and Ros-Lehtinen will never allow to happen while they are still wielding any power whatsoever. Anyone who is playing attention to what did and did not happen, will have notcied that there is no change in American policy towards Wasserman Schultz's, Ros-Lehtinen's and Diaz-Balart's financiers in the surf industry. The cartel stands. Obama:

Today, I approved a Presidential Policy Directive that takes another major step forward in our efforts to normalize relations with Cuba. This Directive takes a comprehensive and whole-of-government approach to promote engagement with the Cuban government and people, and make our opening to Cuba irreversible.

In December 2014, following more than 50 years of failed policy, I announced that the United States would begin a process of normalizing relations with Cuba. Since then, we've worked with the people and the government of Cuba to do exactly that-- re-establishing diplomatic relations, opening embassies, expanding travel and commerce, and launching initiatives to help our people cooperate and innovate. This new directive consolidates and builds upon the changes we've already made, promotes transparency by being clear about our policy and intentions, and encourages further engagement between our countries and our people.

Consistent with this approach, the Departments of Treasury and Commerce issued further regulatory changes today, building on the progress made over the last two years, to continue to facilitate more interaction between the Cuban and American people, including through travel and commercial opportunities, and more access to information. This follows previous changes that helped facilitate interconnectivity between our peoples, and to promote economic reforms on the island by providing access to the dollar in international transactions. These changes are representative of the progress I saw firsthand when I visited Havana to personally extend a hand of friendship to the Cuban people. The quick flight over 90 miles of blue water belied the real barriers of the past that were crossed that day, but my interactions with everyday Cubans told a promising story of neighbors working to build broader ties of cooperation across the Americas.

Challenges remain-- and very real differences between our governments persist on issues of democracy and human rights-- but I believe that engagement is the best way to address those differences and make progress on behalf of our interests and values. The progress of the last two years, bolstered by today's action, should remind the world of what's possible when we look to the future together.

By the way Wasserman Schultz has taken $138,450 in direct bribes from Big Sugar since being elected to Congress. She has also been their bag man among Democrats, tell the Fanjul brothers which Democrats to grease and which ones not to pay off. Mario Diaz-Balart has taken $121,350 and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, more cautious about easily stackable bribes, has gobbled up $70,415.

Diaz-Balart has an opponent this cycle, progressive physician Alina Valdes, who Wasserman Schultz has managed to sabotage inside the Florida Democratic Party and inside the DCCC. Blue America is supporting Alina and you can contribute to her grassroots campaign here. Moments ago, she told is that her district (FL-25) "is an enigma. Comprising parts of urban Miami-Dade, suburban east Collier, and rural Hendry counties, it is difficult to represent the interests of some without affecting those of others. One thing that for sure is that the incumbent takes so much special interest money from Big Sugar that he represents the interests of those who pay for his vote and not the constituents of the actual district. There are many sugar fields that go unused because of government subsidies Big Sugar gets to leave them unused. We, as Americans, are paying to have sugar present in just about all of our processed foods and this may explain why the incidence of obesity and diabetes have been going up in this country. While many of the people of Hendry live off of Big Sugar and their influence in the community, the use of fertilizers are causing many problems to the drinking water people to the south depend on. We recently had an algae bloom which affected said waters and, coupled with climate change and its consequences (which is also denied by the incumbent and the Republican governor and legislature)... a delicate balance needs to be worked out between the needs of the working people and their right to clean, safe water.

"We also have to consider the steps that President Obama has been taking towards diplomacy and and advocacy to lifting the Cuban embargo, which will affect Big Sugar in South Florida. It is time that we work on removing a decades-long failed policy and begin trade and travel with our island neighbors to the southeast, with conditions that if broken, will lift the embargo again. Generations of politically exiled Cubans have lived and died without ever seeing their families or their homeland since leaving. I think it is time to end this separation of families which is long overdue and is supported by my opponent. Let us work towards a mutually beneficial agreement that will help the most. If elected to Congress, I will study this issue in detail and work to enact policy that will benefit the people and not the special interests. PEOPLE before PROFITS... COUNTRY before PARTY... ALWAYS!!!"

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."

CA-44-- There Are Good Democrats... And Then There Are The Other Kind

Just over three months ago, we looked at how Sacramento Democrats plan to get rid of their most corrupt member, state Senator Isadore Hall, by backing him for an open congressional seat. Hall, who just became a state senator last year, won a special election when just 7% of the voters in his district chose to participate. He heads one of the prime "juice committees" in Sacramento, which are committees that oversee lucrative industries, allowing politicians to foster relationships they can squeeze for campaign cash. And Hall's is the giant bicameral innocuously-named committee on government organization, once known as the "committee on public morals," which regulates card rooms, racetracks and Indian tribes that run casinos-- gambling-- industries that have taken a big hand in financing Hall's political career. More than one-third of the $369,000 Hall raised in the first six months of the year came from people tied to a gambling business.

Monday, the L.A. Times ran a piece on Greg Glassman, founder and CEO of CrossFit, which has been lobbying for labelling on the sugary drinks that are at the heart of the explosion in diabetes and obesity rates, particularly in poor areas, like the one Hall represents. Gassman is supporting the Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Safety Warning Act. Sponsored by state Sen. Bill Monning (D-Carmel), the act would require sugar warning labels on soft-drink cans, bottles and vending machines. The warning, similar to that on cigarette packs, would read in part, "Drinking beverages with added sugar(s) contributes to obesity, diabetes, and tooth decay."

The proposal was defeated before a state health committee last year [by 1 vote]. Although a Field Poll that showed 74% of voters favor warning labels, the bill failed in part due to four lawmakers who abstained.

A new vote is slated for Jan. 13.

The lawmakers who abstained at the last vote-- state Sens. Ed Hernandez (D-West Covina), Richard D. Roth (D-Riverside), Isadore Hall III (D-Compton) and Janet Nguyen (R-Garden Grove)-- declined to comment. Glassman notes that many of the lawmakers' constituents are black and Hispanic, two groups that disproportionately suffer high diabetes and obesity rates.

Nguyen's chief of staff, Mark Reeder, said her office has heard similar criticism: "We got a fair amount of unhappy letters … generally saying 'It's a health issue,'" he said. "Some minority groups met with us, thinking they are being targeted by the soda makers."

Abstaining on key bills is a tactic Hall and other conservative Democrats in Sacramento use in situations where they are stuck between what their constituents want-- that 74% is a big number-- and what their campaign donors expect from them for the money they dole out. CrossFit tracked Hall's campaign contributions from the beverage industry, $66,724 through 2014.

2007-2008:

$3497 from Pepsico Inc.
$3500 from California Beer & Beverage Distributors Community Affairs

2009-2010:


$4978 from Pepsico Inc.
$5195 from California Beer & Beverage Distributors Community Affairs
$1000 from California/Nevada Soft Drink Association PAC

2011-2012:


$3514 from Pepsico Inc.
$7800 from California Beer & Beverage Distributors Community Affairs
$3900 from Allied Beverages Inc.
$3000 from Ace Beverage Co.
$2800 from Pacific Beverage
$1000 from Mission Beverage Co.

2013-2014

$4916 from Pepsico Inc.
$12300 from California Beer & Beverage Distributors Community Affairs
$4000 Pacific Beverage
$3000 Ace Beverage Co.
$1324 Pepsico Incorporated and Affiliated Entities
$1000 Mission Beverage Co.

Blue America has endorsed Hall's progressive opponent in the congressional race, Nanette Barragán, and it looks like CrossFit owner Greg Gassman has as well.

Hall is also close with tobacco and alcohol companies. According to the Sacramento Bee, Hall “has the distinction of accepting more tobacco money than all but one other Democratic legislator since 2009.” And Hall has taken more than $100,000 from alcohol companies since 2013, the highest number for any Californian legislator.

Like Big Soda, Big Tobacco has gotten its money’s worth from Hall. The Bee reports “many of the most significant anti-smoking measures died or were watered down in the influential committee Hall oversees.” True to form, Hall declined to comment.

Hall is running to represent California’s 44th district in the US Congress. CrossFit strenuously opposes Hall’s nomination. The reason is simple; CrossFit believes that Hall is not fit for public office. California doesn’t need another congressman in the pockets of alcohol, tobacco and soda.

Opposing Hall is fellow Democrat Nanette Barragan. The 44th district is “solidly Democratic.” Hence, whoever wins the Democratic nomination will likely go on to win the general election. CrossFit Founder and CEO Greg Glassman has spoken to Barragan and expressed his support to her campaign.

Even if Hall weren't one of the worst Democrats running for Congress anywhere, Blue America would still be as enthusiastic about Barragán as we are. A successful fighter against Big Oil-- whose lobbyists are all in for Hall, of course-- she is an unapologetic progressive across the board and is being supported by Congressional Progressive Caucus members eager to have her join their ranks, including Linda Sánchez (CA), Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA), Grace Napolitano (CA), Ruben Gallego (AZ), Lois Frankel (FL), Raul Grijalva (AZ), Debbie Dingell (MI), and Luis Gutierrez (IL).

If you'd like to help Nanette win her race, her grassroots campaign gratefully accepts contributions here.

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.

What Do Politicians Eat-- Aside From Bribes From Food Conglomerates?

On his MSNBC show Friday, Chris Hayes, talked with socially conscious celebrity chef Tom Colicchio about the new food guidelines from the U.S.D.A. (above). Does anyone care what the U.S.D.A. suggests? Or, is there a way to implement their guidelines as part of social policy? As a society, for example, we eat way too much sugar. Hundreds of thousands of Americans died every year because over sugar over-consumption. Diabetes and cancer are rampant. As many as two-thirds of Americans are obese now. Social policy is based on bribes to corrupt politicians-- both parties, like Florida Republican Senator Marco Rubio and DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz-- who make sure the multibillion dollar sugar empire of their benefactors are subsidized with taxpayer funds and protected from competition from cheap foreign-grown sugar. It seems like poor social policy that we spend $180 billion annually in healthcare costs related to bad diet. But the lobbyists are working this full-time and the politicians are lined up to line their pockets and fill their campaign war chests with their bribes.

Some local governments are trying soda taxes, the idea being to make the worst carrier of sugary death, more expensive. Not easy to do. Over 5 million people have watched this sugar documentary by Dr. Robert Lustig, Sugar: The Bitter Truth. How much impact will it have in changing public policy?



Yesterday, Steve Kornacki, also on MSNBC, interviewed another celebrity chef, Rocco DiSpirito, to talk about how some of our politicians eat. They focuses on two especially obese GOP fatties-- Jeb Bush and Chris Christie-- who decided they had to lose some serious poundage in order to run for president. DiSpirito: "I think you can draw an inference from how the candidates conduct themselves in their diet to how they lead. I don't think it's unfair to say that a candidate who's thinking and actually conscious about what he consumes is more likely to be conscious about other things... How well you preserve yourself is an indication of how well you might try to preserve our nation."

How Do You Know Who The New Dems Are? Right Before Elections They Vote With The GOP To Condemn President Obama

Two-faced Georgia reactionary,  John Barrow, votes with Republicans to condemn President Obama

The House is back in session after their 2 month vacation-- and just before another 6 week vacation. Right off the bat Boehner had McCarthy bring up some cockamamie resolution (HR 644) by Virginia crackpot Scott Ridell, "condemning the Obama administration’s failure to comply with the lawful statutory requirement to notify Congress before releasing individuals detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and expressing national security concerns over the release of five Taliban leaders and the repercussions of negotiating with terrorists." Predictably, it passed. But it wasn't a strictly party-line vote. Of course all 227 zombie-Republicans voted YES-- even the "moderates." But 22 semi-Democrats from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party voted for the condemnation too. These are all cowards who fear for their precious careers. If one is yours… do the right thing in November:

• John Barrow (Blue Dog/New Dem- GA)
• Ami Bera (New Dem-CA)
• Bruce Braley (foot-in-mouth Senate candidate-IA)
• Julia Brownley (New Dem-CA)
• Cheri Bustos (Blue Dog-IL)
• Jim Costa (Blue Dog-CA)
• Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX)
• Tulsi Gabbard (HI)
• Pete Gallego (Blue Dog/New Dem-TX)
• Joe Garcia (New Dem-FL)
• Dan Lipinski (Blue Dog-IL)
• Jim Matheson (Blue Dog-UT)
• Mike Michaud (Blue Dog-ME)
• Patrick Murphy (New Dem-FL)
• Beto O'Rourke (TX)
• Gary Peters (New Dem-MI)
• Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)
• Nick Rahall (Blue Dog-WV)
• Raul Ruiz (CA)
• Kurt Schrader (Blue Dog/New Dem-OR)
• Kyrsten Sinema (Blue Dog/New Dem-AZ)
• Tim Walz (MN)

Obviously, the Republican leadership has more pre-election troublemaking in mind besides just a ritual condemnation of Obama that isn't even going to be taken up by the Senate. Tuesday evening they took up Steve Southerland's dirty water bill, HR 5078, which passed 262-152, every Republican voting for more polluted water except Chris Smith (R-NJ). They were joined by 35 Democrats, mostly the regular suspects from the Republican wing of the party, the Barbers and Barrows, Sinemas and Gallegos. The idea behind the bill is to turn oversight of waterways and wetlands over to local governments that are more easily bribed by corporate interests than federal overseers. Big developers and Big Sugar pushed hard for this and many of the backing came from Members taking legalistic bribes from the Big Sugar monopolies. Of the 10 biggest recipients of Big Sugar bribes in the House this cycle, only two voted against Southerland's bill, Betty McCollum (D-MN) and Dan Kildee (D-MI). This is just the cash that's been given to these congresscrooks so far this cycle:

• Mike Conaway (R-TX)- $50,000
• Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)- $46,400
• Mike Simpson (R-ID)- $42,500
• Frank Lucas (R-OK)- $38,400
• Alcee Hastings (D-FL)- $36,000
• Dan Kildee (D-MI)- $34,500
• Joe Garcia (New Dem-FL)- 32,200
• Doug LaMalfa (R-CA)- $30,500
• Betty McCollum (D-MN)- $30,000
• Bob Gibbs (R-OH)- $29,500

So far, in his short political career, Southerland, a freshman, has taken $49,500 from Big Sugar. There's no reason to think Big Sugar, which gives equally to corrupt Democrats and corrupt Republicans, will have any problem if Blue Dog Gwen Graham, who's already raised a fortune and has taken $400,192 from special interest pacs, replaces him. Even if the anti-EPA bill gets through the Senate, which isn't likely, Obama's not going to sign it into law.

[T]he White House has threatened to veto the bill, saying the federal rule is needed to ensure clean water for future generations and to reduce regulatory uncertainty. More than 115 million Americans get their drinking water from rivers, lakes and reservoirs that are at risk of pollution from upstream sources, the White House said.

EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said the proposal does not include new restrictions and merely clarifies what bodies of water already are under federal jurisdiction in the Clean Water Act.

“To set the record straight: this is not about restricting farmers; it’s about protecting downstream water quality for all of us without getting in the way of American agriculture,” McCarthy said in a July speech to a farmers group.

The effort to redefine what constitutes “waters of the United States” was spurred by two Supreme Court decisions that blurred understanding of what waters are covered under the Clean Water Act. Two Supreme Court decisions, in 2001 and 2006, limited regulators’ reach but left unclear the scope of authority over small waterways that might flow intermittently. Landowners and developers say the government has gone too far in regulating isolated ponds or marshes with no direct connection to navigable waterways.

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy said the rule would extend the EPA’s power to include streams, ponds, ditches and even stormwater runoff, at the expense of small businesses and farmers.

“Beyond sounding ridiculous, this rule will impact farmers, energy producers and any private citizens that use their land for economic or recreational purposes,” said McCarthy, who is not related to the EPA official.

Rep. Nick Rahall, D-W.Va., said the EPA rule would hurt his coal-producing state and cost jobs in a troubled economy.

“One has to wonder what is in the water over at EPA headquarters,” said Rahall, one of several Democrats in farming and energy-producing states to support the GOP bid to block the EPA.

Rep. Tim Bishop, D-N.Y., said opponents were mischaracterizing the EPA rule.

“It’s not about the federal government trying to regulate someone’s backyard birdbath,” Bishop said. Instead, he said the rule would protect waterways that provide drinking water to millions of Americans and habitat to wildlife of all types.

Is There A Democrat In Congress More Corrupt Than Debbie Wasserman Schultz?

This morning I got my daily "give me your money" e-mail from one of America's most corrupt politicians, Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL). The subject line was "Petition: Clean Up Campaign Finance" and instead of deleting it unopened like I do with 90% of her spam, I opened it to examine the latest hypocrisy from the sleazy New Dem trying to accumulate as much money as she can in a push to bribe fellow Democratic House members to make her party leader when Pelosi retires or when Pelosi and Hoyer retire. "Dear Friend," she began with every bit of the ugly insincerity that defines her being.

Outside right-wing groups are on track to spend more than $2 billion on this year’s elections. And we can all thank Citizens United for that deluge of spending.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United has fundamentally changed the way our elections work. Anonymous donors like the Koch brothers can now hide behind front groups and pull the strings in a way that corrupts and debases our democracy.

…The whole point of elections is to make the voice of the people heard. The whole point of campaign finance laws is to restrict the corrosive influence of money on politics."

Two of the industries helping to finance Wasserman Schultz's rise to power inside the House caucus are private prisons-- on whose behalf she opposes legalizing medical marijuana-- and, much more so, Big Sugar.

It was her ties to Big Sugar, in fact, that first made DWT aware of the depth of corruption that defines what a revolting character Wasserman Schultz is. Back when Wasserman Schultz was the head of the DCCC's Red to Blue program in 2008, she endorsed 3 corrupt Republican amigos-- Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Lincoln Diaz-Balart and Mario Diaz-Balart-- over three Democrats. Chris Van Hollen fired her a Red to Blue chair, but not before her toxicity had taken root. That year Wasserman Schultz helped beat Joe Garcia, who eventually made it to Congress anyway and helped beat Annette Taddeo, who is running for Lt. Governor today. Neither likes talking about Wasserman Schultz's corruption but both have told intimates she's lower than a snake. In Florida Democratic politics if you don't make an effort to get along with her, you can find yourself face down in a swamp, metaphorically speaking. That was when other Members of Congress first started telling me that Wasserman Schultz was 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). One Member pointed me to an August 15, 2007 article in The 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.

Wasserman Schultz directed payments from a Big Sugar-funded right-wing front group, the 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 Rangel’s amendment 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 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. You'll notice that the majority of these corrupt conservative Wasserman Schultz allies have since then been defeated for reelection by their constituents:

• Jason Altmire (Blue Dog-PA) $8,000 + $5,000
• Mike Arcuri (Blue Dog-NY) $4,000 + $2,000
• Bruce Braley (D-IA) $5,000
• Chris Carney (Blue Dog-PA) $7,000 + $7,500
• Kathy Castor (D-FL) $2,000
• Joe Donnelly (Blue Dog-IN) $3,000 + $5,000
• Brad Ellsworth (Blue Dog-IN) $3,000 + $3,000
• Gabby Giffords (Blue Dog-AZ) $5,000 + $5,000
• Kirsten Gillibrand (Blue Dog-NY) $8,000 + $4,000
• Phil Hare (D-IL) $9,000 + $1,000
• Ron Klein (D-FL) $10,000 + $4,000
• Tim Mahoney (Blue Dog-FL) $10,000 + $7,500
• Harry Mitchell (Blue Dog-AZ) 0 + $4,000
• Patrick Murphy (Blue Dog-PA) $6,000 + $4,000
• Joe Sestak (D-PA) $1,000 + $2,000
• Heath Shuler (Blue Dog-NC) $7,000 + $5,000
• Albio Sires (D-NJ) $10,000
• Zach Space (Blue Dog-OH) $7,000 +$4,000

Today Wasserman Schultz is fighting against Florida Democrats who want to legalize medical marijuana. She's against that but will have your legs cut off if you do anything that is perceived by her crooked financiers, the sugar baron Fanjul brothers, as undercutting a much bigger health risk to Americans: sugar.

Florida Democratic Party heavy-weight, John Morgan, pointed out to the Miami Herald that among "most-powerful players in Washington, D.C… Debbie Wasserman Schultz isn’t just disliked, she’s despised. She’s an irritant." Her status as "an irritant" is still something most Florida politicians only whisper about, but the whispering is becoming louder and louder and more persistent. "Yeah," one Member told me, "everyone thinks she's a total phony you have to watch your back around... everyone is afraid of her. Pelosi hates her too but she's like a force of nature… She's grasping in a way that very few other Members are and she's pretty single-minded when it comes to blind ambition. She does buy a lot of 'friends' though."