Charlie Bass is hitching his wagon to the legacy of a radical, pro-apartheid former New Hampshire governor.

Rep. Charlie Bass (R-NH) — who is facing a strong challenge from bold progressive Annie Kuster — will do anything to distract from his votes to cut Social Security and Medicare benefits by supporting the radical Simpson-Bowles plan or his support from the even more radical Paul Ryan plan to end Medicare.

A few weeks ago, Kuster jokingly referred to the late former New Hampshire governor Mel Thomson as a “worm.” Bass has tried to exploit this off-hand comment, holding a press conference with Thomson’s two sons praising him for eliminating the state’s income tax.

But by focusing solely on the income tax issue, Bass is ignoring the radicalism that Thomson represented. Here are some of the worst things that Thomson did as governor:

Defended Apartheid: Thomson actually flew to South Africa and praised the Apartheid system there. He even called the black township of Soweto — the site of bloody massacres — as “just wonderful.” His trip to South Africa earned the rebuke of fourteen of New Hampshire’s top religious leaders.
Attacked Gay Rights: Thomson threatened the veto the entire budget of the University of New Hampshire after some gay students performed a play there.
Advocated For Nuclear Insanity: Thomson actually wanted to give the National Guard nuclear weapons. He was so opposed to the anti-nuclear movement that he dressed in military fatigues and personally had over 1,400 anti-nuke protesters arrested during a demonstration in Seabrook, New Hampshire.

As Kuster said, Thomson “represented a radical shift in our state’s politics and was the beginning of the end for Republican moderates in the state of New Hampshire.” If Bass wants to proudly defend the legacy of …

Today, Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) sunk to a new low when he suggested at a campaign stop that the family members of asbestos victims who were in a campaign commercial for Elizabeth Warren were actually paid actors:

During a question and answer session, one firefighter commented that both campaigns are publishing advertisements featuring family members of victims of asbestos-related illness. He asked Brown how Warren gets the victims’ family members to go on her commercial.

“A lot of them are paid,” Brown said. “We hear that maybe they pay actors. Listen, you can get surrogates and go out and say your thing. We have regular people in our commercials. No one is paid. They are regular folks that reach out to us and say she is full of it.”

This untrue and offensive accusation triggered a sharp rebuke from one of the women in the ads, widow Ginny Jackson, whose husband died ofAi??mesothelioma after working at a shipyard that contained asbestos. Watch Jackson tell her story in Warren’s campaign ad:

“What Scott Brown said today is so offensive to me and my family after what we went through,” Jackson said. “He’s sunk to a new low.”

Hold Brown accountable. Click here to sign up to make calls for his bold progressive opponent Elizabeth Warren.

UPDATE: Brown has apologized:Ai??”It was wrong for me to have jumped to those conclusions and I apologize to those I offended.”

Tommy Thompson’s health “reforms” are ones we already have.

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is a powerful corporate-funded group that works to secretly pass Big Business-friendly legislation in state legislatures around the country. It is the same group that is responsible for the proliferation of voter suppression and “Shoot First” laws.

Here’s how powerful the group is. Former Wisconsin governor and state legislator Tommy Thompson — who’s currently running for a Senate seat in the state — once told an ALEC conference that he’d “loved going to these meetings because I always found new ideas. Then Iai??i??d take them back to Wisconsin, disguise them a little bit, and declare that ai???Itai??i??s mine.” With that sentence Thompson basically admitted that he’d take corporate-written ALEC bills and work to pass them without anyone ever knowing their origin.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel’s watchdog blogger Dan Bice recently attended a Thompson campaign event and asked him about his remarks about ALEC. Thompson, clearly not knowing how to answer, shook his head and claimed he didn’t remember the words. Watch it:

It’s shameful that Thompson is refusing to talk about his servitude to ALEC and its corporate agenda. The voters of Wisconsin need a senator who will be honest about where the legislation he or she is advocating for comes from.

ALEC doesn’t need its own Senator. Click here to sign up to make calls for his bold progressive opponent Tammy Baldwin.

Help defend Warren against the Super PAC attacking her. Sign up to make calls for her.

Last week, we told you about America 360, a mysterious Super PAC that is being staffed by a former employee of Sen. Scott Brown’s (R-MA) campaign. America 360 is taking aim at Elizabeth Warren, and so far had not disclosed its major donors.

Now, numbers have just been released that show the PAC’s major donors. We now know that the America 360 Super PAC is being funded almost entirely by a Koch company, and that it’s targeting Elizabeth Warren, an opponent of oil subsidies that help enrich the Kochs.

Here’s the scoop from Adam Smith of Public Campaign:

AAi??new reportAi??filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) shows that a pro-Scott Brown super PAC is funded almost entirely by Oxbow Carbon, the company controlled by William Koch, the lesser-known brother of Charles and David Koch. The group, America 360,Ai??recently spentAi??$200,000 on mailers in the Massachusetts Senate race to benefit Sen. Brown.

Mr. Koch donated $500,000 to the group in September through his Oxbow Carbon LLC. Former top Goldman Sachs executive Muneer Satter and Boston real estate developer Paul Robert Marcus each donated $25,000.

Note that one of the other major donors to the Super PAC is the Goldman Sachs executive Muneer Satter. Warren isn’t just a foe of oil subsidies — she’s probably the top opponent of Big Banks running for a Senate seat in November. That’s why nearly half of her opponent Scott Brown’s campaign funds are coming from the financial industry.

Don’t let Super PACs win this race for Brown. Click here to sign up to make calls for Elizabeth Warren and other bold progressive candidates.

Tommy Thompson’s health “reforms” are ones we already have.

The Milwaukee-Journal Sentinel has an odd headlineit just published about the Wisconsin Senate race: “Thompson wins business support, criticizes Baldwin on jobs record.” The “business” group that article is referring to is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a powerful corporate front group based in Washington, D.C.

It’s ironic that Thompson would tout its support while criticizing Baldwin’s record on jobs. The Chamber has been responsible for pioneering the political push for every “free trade” agreement and tax break for outsourcing that’s out there. Here’s a small rundown:

The Chamber Pushed For And Celebrated NAFTA: The Chamber spearheaded the push for the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), saying that it would help the U.S. “stay competitive” with Europe and Asia. It later celebrated the agreement during its fifteenth anniversary, saying it has had “remarkable results.” In 2005, the nonpartisan Economic Policy Institute estimated that Wisconsin was one of the ten states hit hardest by NAFTA, and lost at least 25,000 jobs as a result of the agreement.
The Chamber Led The Charge For New “Free Trade” Agreements With Panama, Colombia, And South Korea: The Chamber’s lobbyists were on the front lines of fighting for these job-killing trade deals, and one of its staffers even argued that even though Colombia has more assassinations of union leaders than the rest of the world combined, that it’s a safe country for labor.
The Chamber Defends Tax Breaks For Outsourcing: Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) introduced a bill to kill tax breaks for moving investment overseas — and to introduce a tax credit to entice companies to bring jobs back to the U.S. –but the Chamber opposed it, and it was killed by …

An image from a Romney ad.

Last night, during the presidential debates, Mitt Romney responded to Barack Obama talking about government investment in the economy by mocking the idea that “government creates jobs”:

OBAMA: And when we talk about deficits, if we’re adding to our deficit for tax cuts for folks who don’t need them and we’re cutting investments in research and science that will create the next Apple, create the next new innovation that will sell products around the world, we will lose that race. If we’re not training engineers to make sure that they are equipped here in this country, then companies won’t come here. Those investments are what’s going to help to make sure that we continue to lead this world economy not just next year, but 10 years from now, 50 years from now, a hundred years from now.

MS. CROWLEY:Ai??Thanks, Mr. President.

Governor Romney ai??i??

MR. ROMNEY:Ai??Government does not create jobs. Government does not create jobs. (Chuckles.)

Watch it:

Later in the debate, Obama failed to defend the notion that government creates jobs. He replied, ” I think a lot of this campaign, maybe over the last four years, has been devoted to this notion that I think government creates jobs, that that somehow is the answer. That’s not what I believe.”

But it’s very easy to defend the idea that government creates jobs. Just turn to one of its proponents — Mitt Romney. Here’s an ad he’s running in Virginia. It claims that Obama’s defense cuts — actually defense cuts caused by possible sequestration that Republicans themselves helped bring on — “threaten over 130,000 jobs”:

The only way that defense cuts can threaten jobs is if government creates jobs. Mitt Romney is clearly being hypocritical, and he knows as well as anyone else …

Alan Simpson is gunning for your Social Security.

Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson — who have aAi??$30 million campaign behind them — have enlisted the help of a Goldman Sachs adviser to say they will give “financial support” to any Member of Congress who will endorse their plan to cut Social Security and Medicare benefits.

They first announced their support for Rep. Charlie Bass (R-NH), who is facing a strong challenge from bold progressive Annie Kuster.

Today, they threw a second endorsement behind Rhode IslandAi??Republican Congressional candidate Brendan Doherty, who is running against Rep. DavidAi??Cicilline.

The key provisions of the Simpson-Bowles plan — a hike in the Social Security age, an outline of cuts to Medicare benefits — are extremely unpopular with the public and the House rejected the plan along a 382-38 vote.

The endorsement from Bowles and Simpson should only serve to identify Doherty as an extreme right-winger willing to cut Social Security and Medicare while lowering corporate taxes.

In Guinta’s mind, thirteen years of the war in Afghanistan isn’t enough.

We’re approaching the eleventh anniversary of the war in Afghanistan, a war which 2/3 of Americans believe should be ended and which costs American taxpayers more than $100 billion a year (a single person makingAi??$40,000 in 2010 basically paid $1,694 to finance the war effort).

President Obama has set a timetable to end Afghan operations in 2014, which means it would have been a thirteen year-long conflict — America’s longest war. That’s a timeline many in his own party think is dragging the war out too long.

But Republican congressman Frank Guinta (NH) — who’s facing a strong challenge from bold progressive Carol Shea-Porter — thinks that the war should continue on even longer:

1st District congressman Frank Guinta predicted Monday that there will need to be some American troop presence in Afghanistan even after the planned 2014 timeline for withdrawal.

ai???Regardless of party affiliation, you will see a group of our warriors in that region for a long time to ensure the different sorts of terrorist networks arenai??i??t allowed to regroup,ai??? Guinta said.

President Obamaai??i??s announced deadline to bring all troops home compromised the U.S. goal ai???to win,ai??? said the Republican first-term congressman.

ai???Your enemy and your opponent understands you are there to win. A timeline and a deadline undermines that goal,ai??? Guinta said at a forum at New England College.

Guinta is sorely out of step with American public opinion and even many in his own party who believe that the war should come to a resolution quickly.

Don’t let Guinta stay in Congress and advocate for a forever war in Afghanistan. Chip in a few dollars to help Carol Shea-Porter’s campaign.

Join PCCC’s Take Back Democracy campaign.

Republican politicians often rail against what they term the “redistribution of wealth.” But when you ask them about government spending that they approve of, they quickly change their minds.

Take this interview with Rep. Martha Roby (R-AL). The congresswoman recently sat down for an interview with Jan Helfield. Helfield asked Roby about how she opposes wealth redistribution by the government. But then Helfield asked her if she supports farm subsidies, which are a massive wealth redistribution program.

Helfield quickly got nervous, and said, “No, I actually think there is a safety net that is appropriate for our farmers.” Helfield asked how these subsidies are not a form of redistribution, and the congresswoman was unable to offer an explanation. Eventually, she simply said she had to leave and got up and left.

Watch it:

The second-largest share of Roby’s campaign funds come from the agricultural industry (almost all of it from lobbyist-run Political Action Committees, as opposed to individuals).

Apparently when progressives try to help the poor and middle class, it’s wealth redistribution. When citizens are taxed to give money to giant corporate farms, it’s A-OK — as long as they finance your campaign.

Stand up against money ruling our politics. Click here to join PCCC’s Take Back Democracy campaign.

(Photo credit: Flickr user DonkeyHotey)

Americans have faith in the presidential debates to be wide-ranging discussions that probe the candidates’ views and hold them accountable to the public. And for much of recent history, that’s what these debates were. From 1976 to 1984, the League of Women Voters held debates renowned for their fiercely independent moderators and transparent process.

But in more recent years, the debates have been held by an organization called the “Commission on Presidential Debates,” (CPD) which tightly controls the process by choosing moderators and questions.

Here’s one little known fact about the CPD — it’s chaired by corporate lobbyists. One of the chairmen isAi??Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr., who was once a Republican National Convention chairman but now works as a gambling industry lobbyist. The other chairman is Michael D. McCurry, who is a former press secretary for Bill Clinton. He now works as a “partner at Public Strategies Washington, Inc., where he provides counsel on communications strategies and management to corporate and non-profit clients.” Given the loopholes in our lobbying laws, McCurry doesn’t even have to disclose his clients, but we do know that in 2006 he spearheaded the Hands Off The Internet campaign that was designed to kill net neutrality on behalf of big telecom companies.

Every year, CPD also opens up the debates to corporate sponsors. Here’s the list of this year’s sponsors:

Anheuser-Busch Companies
The Howard G. Buffett Foundation
Sheldon S. Cohen, Esq.
Crowell & Moring LLP
International Bottled Water Association (IBWA)
The Kovler Fund
Southwest Airlines

With a sponsorship list like that, don’t be surprised if we don’t see questions critical of the industries listed. But this year’s list is relatively tame. In the past, theAi??tobaccoAi??industry, AT&T, and others have all been sponsors.

Here’s one last interesting tidbit about the debates. …

What we really need.

Florida’s a crucial swing state that presidential candidates go out of their way to woo. So expect political shockwaves from Ai??new studyAi??by the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation that shows that Florida’s seniors would be devastated by Paul Ryan’s plan to privatize Medicare.

The study finds that Florida’s seniors would actually be hit the worst out of seniors in any state by the increase in costs associated with Ryan’s plan. Kaiser estimates that 77 percent of seniors would have to pay $200 or more per month in order to afford health care if Ryan’s Medicare voucher scheme were to be enacted. The study also estimates that 89 percent of Floridans would be subject to at least $50 more in premiums each month.

Help us hold Paul Ryan accountable. Click here to chip in a few dollars for his Democratic opponent Rob Zerban.

Tammy Baldwin is raising more money than her corporate-friendly challenger, and she’s doing it all through the grassroots

Earlier today, we reported that bold progressive Elizabeth Warren has out-raised incumbent Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) by over $4 million. And she’s doing it with the power of grassroots donors, as opposed to Brown, who is relying on the financial industry for his support.

Now, numbers are out in the Wisconsin Senate race and they show that fellow progressive Tammy Baldwin is leading her right-wing challenger Tommy Thompson:

Based on statements released by Republican Tommy Thompsonai??i??s and Democrat Tammy Baldwinai??i??s campaigns Monday, the congresswoman from Madison has the lead.

Baldwin raised $4.5 million from July 1 through Sept. 30 and had $3.4 million to spend at the beginning of October, according to her campaign. Thompson raised $3.6 million during the third quarter of 2012, with more than $2.2 million of it collected since he won the Aug. 14 Republican primary. He had nearly $2 million, his camp said, to begin the final push.

Let’s dig into the numbers a little bit. Baldwin’s top donors are the members of EMILY’s List. Thompson’s top donor is Centene Corporation, a medical firm where Thompson served as a board member. More than a quarter of his top twenty donors are health care corporations and pharmaceutical giants, while not a single health care profiteer ranks as a top donor to Baldwin.

Baldwin is winning the fundraising race by tapping the grassroots, while Thompson is calling on the very same donors who he worked for as Bush’s Health and Human Services Secretary, when he cut a sweetheart deal with Big Pharma that cost Americans $20 billion year.

Help Baldwin across the finish line. Chip in a few dollars to her campaign by …

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) is running scared from his bold progressive opponent Rob Zerban. Despite Zerban’s strong candidacy —he actually out-raised Ryan in the third quarter — Ryan has not agreed to a single debate with him, in a huge disservice to voters.

But it isn’t just Democrats who are upset about Members of Congress like Ryan who won’t debate their opponent.

At a recent town hall, Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL) complained about how his Democratic opponent, Tammy Duckworth, only agreed to one debate with him. He then went on to imply that voters should not cast a vote for anyone who isn’t willing to take part in debates:

WALSH:Ai??We had the one debate last week, the one debate where she’ll get in front of people with me, she’s turned down 13 debates…. I’m a Republican, but I would say the same thing if i was running against a Republican, nobody in this country, this year should vote for any candidate that doesn’t get in front of people and find out what’s going on in your lives and tell you where they stand on issues.

Watch it:

So don’t take it from us — take it from far-right Republican Joe Walsh. Candidates like Paul Ryan who duck their ownAi??constituentsAi??and refuse to debate with their opponents don’t deserve votes.

Help us hold Paul Ryan accountable. Click here to chip in a few dollars for his Democratic opponent Rob Zerban.

The grassroots are excited about Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren’s candidacy. Fundraising numbers out today show that she raised a stunning $12 million in the third quarter, which amounts to $4 million more than incumbent Senator Scott Brown’s (R-MA) haul.

While the press is focusing on the fact that Warren has raised more money, it’s also important to understand theAi??kindAi??of money that both candidates are raising. As we told you last week, half of Brown’s top twenty donors are from the banking and financial industry. Meanwhile, Warren’s top givers are theAi??the grassroots donors of EMILYai??i??s List, employees of Harvard University, and members of Moveon.org.

We here at the Progressive Change Campaign Committee have raised over $1 million for Warren’s candidacy. That’s from over 50,000 grassroots donors, and the average donation is $16. Help keep it going.

Help Warren in her grassroots-driven campaign. Click here to sign up to make a few phone calls for her candidacy.