<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Salon.com > Justin Elliott</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.salon.com/writer/justin_elliott/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.salon.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 27 May 2012 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>FCC takes on super PACs</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/04/27/fcc_v_super_pacs/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/04/27/fcc_v_super_pacs/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Apr 2012 18:05:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2012 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Advertising]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Criticism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12911015</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The commission voted to require stations to post political ad data online -- but it won't be searchable]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Federal Communications Commission voted 2 to 1 this morning to require broadcasters to post political ad data on the Web, making it easier for the public to see how <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/06/news/la-pn-2012-ads-could-top-3-billion-20111006">as much as</a> $3.2 billion will be spent on TV advertising this election.</p><p>The files — which, among other information, detail the times ads aired, how much they cost, and whether stations rejected ad buy requests from campaigns — are currently available only on paper at stations.</p><p>The FCC rejected <a href="http://www.propublica.org/article/broadcasters-last-ditch-push-to-hide-political-ad-data">a push</a> by the industry to water down the measure. But the rule as passed also has serious limits. For example, the data will not be searchable or uploaded in a common format.</p><p>The rule will first apply to affiliates of the four major networks (ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox) in the top 50 TV markets. All other stations will have until July 2014 to come into compliance.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/04/27/fcc_v_super_pacs/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/04/27/fcc_v_super_pacs/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Citizens United tax break?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/03/19/the_super_pac_tax_break/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/03/19/the_super_pac_tax_break/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Mar 2012 20:21:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Campaign Finance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Citizens United]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12699801</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Corporations may be writing off the money they\'re donating to political nonprofits]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html?pagewanted=all">decision</a> opened up the way for unlimited corporate spending on politics and has led to the proliferation of non-profit political groups that do not have to disclose the identities of their donors. But it turns out corporations may be getting another benefit from anonymous donations they give to these groups: a break on their taxes.</p><p><script type="text/javascript" src="http://pixel.propublica.org/pixel.js"></script>It all starts with the so-called "social welfare" groups that have become <a href="http://www.propublica.org/blog/item/super-pacs-propublicas-guide-to-the-new-world-of-campaign-finance">bigger players</a> in the political world in the wake of Citizens United, which knocked down restrictions on campaign activity by such groups.</p><p>Tax experts say it's possible that businesses are using an aggressive interpretation of the law to wring a tax advantage out of their donations to these groups.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/03/19/the_super_pac_tax_break/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/03/19/the_super_pac_tax_break/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>18</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The GOP&#8217;s new love of &#8220;dark money&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/03/08/the_gops_new_love_of_dark_money/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/03/08/the_gops_new_love_of_dark_money/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Mar 2012 21:28:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2012 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Campaign Finance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republican Party]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12653891</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In 2000, it was Republicans like McCain and Castle -- not Democrats -- who were pushing for donor disclosures]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Last month, when House Democrats <a href="http://vanhollen.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=279166" target="_blank">introduced</a> the DISCLOSE 2012 Act to try to stop the flow of secret "dark money" into the electoral process, it marked an ironic twist.</p><p><script type="text/javascript" src="http://pixel.propublica.org/pixel.js"></script>A decade ago, it was Republicans who were pushing for disclosure of donors to nonprofit social welfare groups who are now pouring millions into political attack ads and House Democrats who opposed them.</p><p>Now the parties have exchanged positions.</p><p>The groups in question are nonprofits <a href="http://www.irs.gov/charities/nonprofits/article/0,,id=96178,00.html" target="_blank">known as</a> 501(c)(4)s, after the section of the tax code that describes them.</p><p>The best-known of the newer c4's are the Karl Rove-affiliated <a href="http://www.crossroadsgps.org/" target="_blank">Crossroads GPS</a>, which last year raised a $33 million war chest to support Republicans, and the Obama-affiliated <a href="http://www.prioritiesusa.org/news" target="_blank">Priorities USA</a>, which is expected to play a similar role for the president. Like super PACs, c4's can accept unlimited donations. But Super PACs have to reveal their donors; c4's do not.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/03/08/the_gops_new_love_of_dark_money/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/03/08/the_gops_new_love_of_dark_money/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Can the NYPD (legally) spy on mosques?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/02/29/can_the_nypd_legally_spy_on_mosques/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/02/29/can_the_nypd_legally_spy_on_mosques/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Feb 2012 21:43:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NYPD]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Terrorism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12457041</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A civil liberties expert explains how the city\'s Muslim surveillance program may have broken local and federal laws]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Last August, the Associated Press launched a <a href="http://ap.org/nypd/">series</a> detailing how the New York Police Department has extensively investigated Muslims in New York and other states, including preparing reports on mosques and Muslim-owned businesses, apparently without any suspicion of crimes being committed.</p><p>The propriety and legality of the NYPD's activities is under dispute. Mayor Michael Bloomberg – who <a href="http://www.propublica.org/article/revelations-on-nypd-surveillance-contradict-mayor-bloomberg-claims">claimed</a> last year that the NYPD does not focus on religion and only follows threats or leads – is now arguing that, as he <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/news/mayor-bloomberg-defends-nypd-spying-muslims-calling-legal-constitutional-article-1.1028022">said</a> last week, "Everything the NYPD has done is legal, it is appropriate, it is constitutional." Others disagree. In fact, Bloomberg himself <a href="http://www.nyc.gov/portal/site/nycgov/menuitem.c0935b9a57bb4ef3daf2f1c701c789a0/index.jsp?pageID=mayor_press_release&amp;catID=1194&amp;doc_name=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nyc.gov%2Fhtml%2Fom%2Fhtml%2F2004b%2Fpr183-04.html&amp;cc=unused1978&amp;rc=1194&amp;ndi=1">signed</a> a <a href="http://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=441383&amp;GUID=9DE60248-A521-4090-A499-B17B03061E4A&amp;Options=&amp;Search=">law</a> in 2004 prohibiting profiling by law enforcement based on religion.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/02/29/can_the_nypd_legally_spy_on_mosques/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/02/29/can_the_nypd_legally_spy_on_mosques/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A Mormon &#8220;frontlash&#8221; for Romney?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/02/04/a_mormon_frontlash_for_romney/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/02/04/a_mormon_frontlash_for_romney/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Feb 2012 14:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2012 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mitt Romney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mormon Church]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Story You Missed]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War Room]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12293901</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Republican front-runner is benefiting from LDS voters in Nevada; we look at Mormon voting patterns]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A <a href="http://www.lvrj.com/news/romney-poised-to-roll-poll-shows-138551749.html">poll</a> out of Nevada this week showed Mitt Romney winning 45 percent of those Republicans likely to attend Saturday’s caucuses. And the internals of the poll showed Romney's base: 86 percent of Mormon likely caucus-goers support him.</p><p>That’s a significant number, especially given that Mormons, who represent 7 percent of the state’s population, made up a quarter of caucus-goers in 2008, <a href="http://www.lvrj.com/news/romney-poised-to-roll-poll-shows-138551749.html">according to</a> the Las Vegas Review-Journal.</p><p>It's worth remembering here that Nevada is considered a swing state and Romney could benefit from what Ed Kilgore <a href="http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2012_02/lds_power_in_nevada035152.php">calls</a> a Mormon "frontlash" in a general election contest against Barack Obama. In the primary, Kilgore points out, Mormons "will also matter on February 28 in Arizona (<a href="http://www.rickety.us/lds/us/">6% LDS</a>), and in later caucuses in Idaho (27% LDS) and Wyoming (11% LDS), right down to heavily-Mormon Utah, which ends the whole nominating process on June 26."</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/02/04/a_mormon_frontlash_for_romney/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/02/04/a_mormon_frontlash_for_romney/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>35</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Congress protests Obama on Bahrain arms sale</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/02/03/congress_protests_obama_on_bahrain_arms_sale/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/02/03/congress_protests_obama_on_bahrain_arms_sale/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 17:07:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bahrain]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Middle East]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12291391</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[18 representatives and three senators point to continued human rights abuses in letter to Hillary Clinton]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Here's a quick update on the Obama administration's recent <a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/01/30/obama_quietly_sells_arms_to_human_rights_abuser_bahrain/singleton/">decision</a> to sell arms to the regime in Bahrain, which has been accused of widespread human rights abuses in suppressing a protest movement in the Gulf nation.</p><p>Three senators and and 18 representatives -- all Democrats -- have signed a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton condemning the deal (and remember, the administration still isn't saying what equipment, exactly, it's sending to Bahrain). Here's the key section of the letter:</p><blockquote><p>We recognize the limited nature of the sales, and we acknowledge that the Bahraini government has taken some positive steps with respect to human rights in recent months. <strong>However, it has not done enough to justify the sale of any military items or services to Bahrain. Moreover, if the Administration wishes to reward the Bahraini government for any progress, there are other methods that do not involve strengthening the Bahraini military or security forces.</strong></p>
<p>Tragically, even a brief survey of reports from reliable sources makes clear that the Bahraini government continues to perpetrate significant human rights violations.</p></blockquote><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/02/03/congress_protests_obama_on_bahrain_arms_sale/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/02/03/congress_protests_obama_on_bahrain_arms_sale/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>8</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>WikiLeaks sheds light on Adelson&#8217;s Asia business</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/02/03/wikileaks_sheds_light_on_adelsons_asia_business/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/02/03/wikileaks_sheds_light_on_adelsons_asia_business/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 01:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2012 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[China]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gambling]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Newt Gingrich]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12284801</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Cable describes shutdown of a $100 million Adelson nonprofit in Beijing and refers to "missteps" in China]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We've learned this election cycle that casino magnate Sheldon Adelson isn't afraid to throw around <a href="http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/01/sheldon_adelsons_family_members_funded_half_of_newt_gingrich_super_pacs_2011_haul.php">vast</a> <a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/01/25/what_the_adelsons_get_for_their_money/">sums</a> of money to get what he wants -- he and his family have given at least $11 million to help the Newt Gingrich campaign.</p><p>It hasn't gotten any notice since Adelson became a player in presidential politics, but it turns out that the trove of diplomatic cables published by WikiLeaks contains an interesting anecdote about how Adelson aggressively promoted his casino and hotel <a href="http://www.lasvegassands.com/LasVegasSands/Our_Properties/At_a_Glance.aspx">business</a> in the Chinese territory of Macau -- and a run-in he had with the central government in Beijing.</p><p>First, some context. The news <a href="http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011/mar/01/las-vegas-sands-receives-sec-subpoena/">broke</a> last March that Adelson's Las Vegas Sands Corp. is under federal investigation into whether it has complied with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The act <a href="http://www.justice.gov/criminal/fraud/fcpa/">makes it</a> illegal to bribe foreign officials to obtain business deals.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/02/03/wikileaks_sheds_light_on_adelsons_asia_business/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/02/03/wikileaks_sheds_light_on_adelsons_asia_business/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>7</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Vast gender disparity in super PAC giving</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/02/02/vast_gender_disparity_in_super_pac_giving/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/02/02/vast_gender_disparity_in_super_pac_giving/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2012 01:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2012 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Campaign Finance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gender]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War Room]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12279581</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[More than 85 percent of the donors to Romney and Obama super PACs were men in 2011]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Going through the donor listings in the super PAC disclosures <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72307.html">filed</a> Tuesday, female names are very difficult to find.</p><p>Unlike fundraising by the candidates' official campaigns, which tend to rely at least in part on small donations from grass-roots supporters, the super PACs raise massive sums from a very small number of wealthy people. Who those donors are is important because they presumably will have influence with (or on) their favored candidate and potentially the next president.</p><p>Priorities USA Action, the Obama <a href="http://www.iwatchnews.org/2012/01/30/8025/pac-profile-priorities-usa-action">super PAC</a>, raised $1.2 million and had 38 individual donors in the second half of 2011. Out of those, 33, or 86 percent, were male. (I did not include corporate or union donations in these calculations.)</p><p>The disparity is even wider with the Romney <a href="http://www.iwatchnews.org/2012/01/30/7977/pac-profile-restore-our-future">super PAC</a>, Restore our Future, which raised $17 million in the second half of 2011. Out of 146 individual donors, 134, or 92 percent, were male.</p><p>This is hardly a new phenomenon.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/02/02/vast_gender_disparity_in_super_pac_giving/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/02/02/vast_gender_disparity_in_super_pac_giving/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>8</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Meet Karl Rove&#8217;s Sheldon Adelson</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/02/01/meet_karl_roves_sheldon_adelson/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/02/01/meet_karl_roves_sheldon_adelson/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2012 17:37:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2012 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Campaign Finance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Karl Rove]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12277271</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Texas billionaire Harold Simmons has given $7 million to a Rove-affiliated outside group]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We've written <a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/01/25/what_the_adelsons_get_for_their_money/">a lot</a> about Sheldon and Miriam Adelson and their $10 million in donations to a pro-Newt Gingrich super PAC. Part of the reason the Adelson donations got so much attention is that their existence was leaked to the media before the disclosure filing deadline. Since all super PACs were required to disclose their 2011 donors yesterday, we now have a much better picture of the <em>other</em> mega-donors who are in effect setting the agenda of the GOP primary.</p><p>One of the big <a href="http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=94531F06-2053-4BC1-BB93-44265FF72935">headlines</a> out of the filings Tuesday is that Harold Simmons, a Texas billionaire, gave the Karl Rove-affiliated <a href="http://www.americancrossroads.org/">American Crossroads</a> an impressive $7 million over the course of just a couple months in the fourth quarter of 2011. That's nearly 40 percent of the $18 million the group raised last year; an affiliated group, Crossroads GPS, whose donors are secret, <a href="http://www.iwatchnews.org/2012/01/31/8064/crossroads-groups-raise-whopping-51-million-2011?utm_source=huffingtonpost&amp;utm_medium=widgets&amp;utm_campaign=huffpo-widget">raised</a> more than $30 million.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/02/01/meet_karl_roves_sheldon_adelson/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/02/01/meet_karl_roves_sheldon_adelson/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Huntsman&#8217;s dad bankrolled his campaign</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/31/huntsmans_dad_bankrolled_his_campaign/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/31/huntsmans_dad_bankrolled_his_campaign/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2012 16:44:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2012 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jon Huntsman]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12269881</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The super-rich founder of the family's giant chemical company provided most of the money for the Huntsman super PAC]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Today we are finally <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/super-pacs-set-disclose-big-donors-tuesday-065005955.html">learning</a> who bankrolls the super PACs that have been dominating the Republican primary, as they file Federal Election Commission reports detailing their finances. The groups managed to <a href="http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=7D65D43B-F438-4051-AF7D-8BB7702C6945">exploit a loophole</a> to delay their disclosures until today, after several key primaries and caucuses have already been held.</p><p>As of this writing, the filings of the super PACs backing Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich have not yet appeared on the FEC's website. But we have learned something about the pro-Jon Huntsman group, Our Destiny PAC: It was funded primarily by Huntsman's father, Jon Huntsman Sr.</p><p>Huntsman Sr. is the founder and chairman of the Huntsman Corp., a giant chemical company, and he was on Forbes' <a href="http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/10/billionaires-2010_Jon-Huntsman_FETQ.html">list</a> of the 1,000 richest people in the world in 2010.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/01/31/huntsmans_dad_bankrolled_his_campaign/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/31/huntsmans_dad_bankrolled_his_campaign/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>U.S. secrecy system &#8220;literally out of control&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/31/u_s_secrecy_system_literally_out_of_control/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/31/u_s_secrecy_system_literally_out_of_control/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12265491</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In the latest freedom-of-information blow, agencies ignore a transparency order from the president himself]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Several pieces of news about government secrecy emerged this week that show just how far away the United States has gotten from the principle of open government. The secrecy system is beyond control of the president.</p><p>First, we got a <a href="http://thefoiablog.typepad.com/the_foia_blog/2012/01/assassination-archives-seeks-release-of-50000-jfk-documents.html">reminder</a> that there are <em>still </em>50,000 pages of government record relating to the JFK assassination that are being kept secret, nearly a half-century after that event. That's despite the 1992 passage of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_John_F._Kennedy_Assassination_Records_Collection_Act_of_1992">JFK Act</a>, which specifically called for the "expeditious" release of these records.</p><p>Second, the New York Times <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/29/us/slow-freedom-of-information-responses-cloud-a-window-into-washington.html">reported</a> on an almost comically long delay in the government response to a Freedom of Information of Act request the newspaper filed in 1997. A response to the Times request was finally sent out earlier this week.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/01/31/u_s_secrecy_system_literally_out_of_control/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/31/u_s_secrecy_system_literally_out_of_control/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>19</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Obama quietly sells arms to human rights-abuser Bahrain</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/30/obama_quietly_sells_arms_to_human_rights_abuser_bahrain/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/30/obama_quietly_sells_arms_to_human_rights_abuser_bahrain/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Jan 2012 15:28:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bahrain]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12260851</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[And the administration isn't saying what exactly is being given to the regime, which has attacked protesters]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>When we last checked in on Bahrain, it was <a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/12/08/how_bahrain_works_washington/singleton/">furiously</a> <a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/01/04/lockheed_martin_goes_to_bat_for_oppressive_regime/singleton/">lobbying</a> to keep its cozy ties with the United States despite well-documented human rights abuses against a protest movement in the Gulf nation.</p><p>It now appears that those efforts may have paid off.</p><p>The Obama administration has gone ahead with selling arms to the regime despite opposition in Congress.  And we only know about the sale because some anonymous congressional sources came forward to alert the media. Josh Rogin of Foreign Policy has <a href="http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/01/27/obama_administration_selling_new_arms_package_to_bahrain">the story</a>:</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/01/30/obama_quietly_sells_arms_to_human_rights_abuser_bahrain/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/30/obama_quietly_sells_arms_to_human_rights_abuser_bahrain/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>28</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The grim future of campaign finance</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/28/the_grim_future_of_campaign_finance/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/28/the_grim_future_of_campaign_finance/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 Jan 2012 14:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2012 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Campaign Finance]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12249991</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The immediate reform fight is not about stopping the flow of money, but rather securing mere disclosure]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It's not even the general election season, and we're already seeing the electoral process dominated by super PACs, funded with unlimited donations and protected by a <a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/01/25/the_charade_of_superpac_independence/singleton/">paper-thin veil</a> of "independence."</p><p>The super PACs operating in the GOP primary have managed to delay disclosing their donors until next month, but the identities of who funded these groups will be public. Groups in a different category -- those that <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/19/colbert-super-pac_n_1212960.html">don't ever disclose</a> donors -- haven't started operating in any prominent way, but you can be sure they will in the fall.</p><p>I've <a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/01/18/is_citizens_united_just_misunderstood/">recently</a> <a href="http://electionlawblog.org/?p=28207">explored</a> how we got to this point. But what about the prospects for reform of a system that so many are disillusioned with?</p><p>To learn about what's going on, I spoke to Fred Wertheimer, the founder and president of Democracy 21, who has been working on campaign finance issues for more than three decades.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/01/28/the_grim_future_of_campaign_finance/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/28/the_grim_future_of_campaign_finance/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>18</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Newt Gingrich: Anti-poverty crusader?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/27/newt_gingrich_anti_poverty_crusader/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/27/newt_gingrich_anti_poverty_crusader/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Jan 2012 14:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2012 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Newt Gingrich]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Poverty]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12245001</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The unlikely story of how the man who blasts Obama as a "food stamp president" saved a key Great Society program]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Newt Gingrich has made criticism of President Obama as a "food stamp president" who wants to "maximize dependency" of the poor on the government one of the central themes of his campaign.</p><p>So it comes as a bit of a surprise that a top anti-poverty advocate in Washington credits Gingrich with saving an important federal program designed to help the poor.</p><p>The episode in question dates back to Gingrich's time as speaker of the House in the 1990s. During his tenure, Gingrich delivered a $100 million -- or more than 25 percent -- budget boost to Community Action Agencies (CAA), which use federal dollars on a range of locally controlled community projects <a href="http://www.ncaf.org/understanding-community-action/what-is-a-community-action-agency">designed to</a> help address the causes of poverty.</p><p>Federal money to the CAAs goes to projects on education, job training, nutrition and the like. That infusion of money was an about-face from 1995, when the new Republican majority in the House had proposed eliminating funding for Community Action Agencies after they took power under Speaker Gingrich.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/01/27/newt_gingrich_anti_poverty_crusader/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/27/newt_gingrich_anti_poverty_crusader/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>6</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Wall Street execs are major Obama fundraisers</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/26/wall_street_execs_are_major_obama_fundraisers/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/26/wall_street_execs_are_major_obama_fundraisers/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Jan 2012 13:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2012 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wall Street]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12239871</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Bundlers from the securities industry have raised at least $9 million for the Obama campaign so far]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The consensus view of President Obama’s State of the Union address is that it was a "populist pitch" that sought to, as the Wall Street Journal <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203806504577180892781608360.html">reported</a>, “tap widespread anti-Wall Street sentiment and voter anger about economic disparity without scaring independents.”</p><p>That take on the Obama reelection campaign strategy is in line with what we’ve been hearing for months out of the White House, which <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obama-plans-to-turn-anti-wall-street-anger-on-mitt-romney-republicans/2011/10/14/gIQAZfiwkL_story.html">previewed</a> the concept to the Washington Post as early as October, just as the Occupy movement was getting underway.</p><p>The tension or perhaps contradiction with this strategy is that, as I’ve been documenting, this administration and the Democratic Party are not fundamentally anti-Wall Street institutions. They have deep ties to the financial services industry.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/01/26/wall_street_execs_are_major_obama_fundraisers/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/26/wall_street_execs_are_major_obama_fundraisers/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>29</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>What the Adelsons will want for their money</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/25/what_the_adelsons_get_for_their_money/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/25/what_the_adelsons_get_for_their_money/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2012 17:04:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2012 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Israel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Israel-Palestine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Newt Gingrich]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12235261</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The $10 million in pro-Newt money that transformed the GOP primary appears to be all about US policy toward Israel]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Casino magnate Sheldon Adelson and his wife Miriam have transformed the Republican primary by pumping $10 million into a pro-Newt Gingrich super PAC, thereby enabling his surge against Mitt Romney. So it’s surprising that comments Gingrich made last week about what the Adelsons expect in exchange for their money haven’t gotten more attention.</p><p>Ted Koppel asked Gingrich the key question: what do the Adelsons get if you win?</p><p>Gingrich, in response, suggested it all comes down to U.S. policy toward Israel.</p><p>Here’s the video, <a href="http://mondoweiss.net/2012/01/gingrich-says-his-backers-central-value-is-israel-and-nbc-has-no-more-to-say-on-the-subject.html">via</a> Mondoweiss:</p><p><iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/6j4T0A8FJ9o" frameborder="0" width="450" height="315"></iframe></p><blockquote><p><strong>Koppel</strong>: But there has to be a so-what at the end of it. So if you win, what does Adelson get out of it?</p>
<p><strong>Gingrich</strong>. Well, he knows I'm very pro-Israel. And that's the central value of his life. I mean, he's very worried that Israel is going to not survive.</p></blockquote><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/01/25/what_the_adelsons_get_for_their_money/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/25/what_the_adelsons_get_for_their_money/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>140</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Romney aide lobbied for high-speed rail</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/25/romney_aide_lobbied_for_high_speed_rail/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/25/romney_aide_lobbied_for_high_speed_rail/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2012 01:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2012 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lobbying]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lobbyists]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mitt Romney]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12229541</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ron Kaufman is one of the lobbyists who advise Mitt Romney, who is attacking Newt Gingrich for his lobbying past]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Romney campaign has made Newt Gingrich's recent history as an unregistered "lobbyist" -- particularly his work for conservative bête noire Freddie Mac -- the key front in its <a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/01/24/romney_attacks_newt_as_lobbyist/">attacks</a> on him in Florida.</p><p>It's no surprise that Romney is using the lobbyist card: Polls consistently <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/151460/record-rate-honesty-ethics-members-congress-low.aspx">show</a> that the American public view lobbying as one of the worst professions when it comes to honesty and ethics. More surprising is that the Gingrich campaign has not turned the tables on Romney by looking at the recent lobbying work of several of Romney's top aides.</p><p>I recently <a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/01/05/romney_and_adviser_at_odds_on_immigration/">reported</a> that informal Romney advisor Charlie Black, for example, lobbied for the DREAM Act, putting him directly at odds with Romney's position on the immigration legislation.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/01/25/romney_aide_lobbied_for_high_speed_rail/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/25/romney_aide_lobbied_for_high_speed_rail/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>11</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Romney attacks Newt as &#8220;lobbyist&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/24/romney_attacks_newt_as_lobbyist/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/24/romney_attacks_newt_as_lobbyist/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jan 2012 16:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2012 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lobbying]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lobbyists]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mitt Romney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Newt Gingrich]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12223431</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Even as he goes after Gingrich for working for Freddie Mac, Romney has surrounded himself with lobbyists]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Part of the aggressive new Romney campaign offensive against Newt Gingrich is to attack Gingrich for having been a lobbyist. The irony of the strategy is that Mitt Romney has surrounded himself with multiple registered lobbyists at the highest level of his campaign.</p><p>“Over the last 15 years since he left the House, he talks about great bold movements and ideas,” Romney <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71802.html">told</a> a Florida crowd this week. “Well, what’s he been doing for 15 years? He’s been working as a lobbyist, yeah, he’s been working as a lobbyist and selling influence around Washington."</p><p>In fact, Gingrich has never been a <em>registered </em>lobbyist -- a distinction that Gingrich <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/23/politics/republican-debate/index.html">invoked</a> in the Monday night debate -- but his "strategic advice" <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-15/gingrich-said-to-be-paid-by-freddie-mac-to-win-republican-allies.html">work</a> for Freddie Mac looked a lot like what can be colloquially described as lobbying, or at least something close to it.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/01/24/romney_attacks_newt_as_lobbyist/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/24/romney_attacks_newt_as_lobbyist/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Rate of Americans killed in Afghanistan soars</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/23/rate_of_americans_killed_in_afghanistan_soars/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/23/rate_of_americans_killed_in_afghanistan_soars/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Jan 2012 21:06:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Afghanistan]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12221291</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As President Obama escalated the war, the numbers of soldiers and civilians killed rose dramatically]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In the past six months, President Obama <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7371043n">has</a> <a href="http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/10/obama-the-tide-of-war-is-receding.php">repeatedly</a> <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57353042-503544/obama-unveils-new-defense-strategy/">declared</a> that "the tide of war is receding."</p><p>And, if one measures by reduction in the aggregate number of troops deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, the president is right. But it's also true that Obama has presided over a significant escalation in the war in Afghanistan.</p><p>One can see that in <a href="http://afghanistan.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/22/chart-u-s-troop-levels-over-the-years/">charts</a> of American troop levels, and also, as a new Congressional Research Service report shows, in the number of American soldiers and Afghans being killed and wounded. Click the chart for the full image:</p><p><a href="http://media.salon.com/2012/01/afghanistan-casualties-big-.png"><img src="http://media.salon.com/2012/01/afghanistan-casualties.png" alt="" /></a></p><p>(The 2012 figure is so low because it's only a few weeks into the year.)</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/01/23/rate_of_americans_killed_in_afghanistan_soars/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/23/rate_of_americans_killed_in_afghanistan_soars/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>13</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Dodd accused of &#8220;bribery&#8221; over SOPA remarks</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/23/dodd_accused_of_bribery_over_sopa_remarks/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/23/dodd_accused_of_bribery_over_sopa_remarks/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Jan 2012 16:03:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Campaign Finance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Christopher Dodd]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12216781</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hollywood's top lobbyist warns Democrats that his industry will cut off the money flow if they don't get in line]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>With the (at least temporary) <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/21/technology/senate-postpones-piracy-vote.html">shelving</a> last week of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA), Hollywood was dealt a defeat following a backlash led by Internet giants Google, Wikipedia and others.</p><p>Now Chris Dodd, senator <a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/01/18/chris_dodds_paid_sopa_crusading/singleton/">turned</a> Motion Picture Association of America chief, is out with an informative interview warning lawmakers -- particularly Democrats -- not to count on Hollywood's historically generous campaign contributions. He <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/19/exclusive-hollywood-lobbyist-threatens-to-cut-off-obama-2012-money-over-anti/">told</a> Fox late last week:</p><blockquote><p>Candidly, those who count on quote 'Hollywood' for support need to understand that this industry is watching very carefully who's going to stand up for them when their job is at stake. Don't ask me to write a check for you when you think your job is at risk and then don't pay any attention to me when my job is at stake. ...</p>
<p>I would caution people don't make the assumption that because the quote 'Hollywood community' has been historically supportive of Democrats, which they have, don't make the false assumptions this year that because we did it in years past, we will do it this year. These issues before us -- this is the only issue that goes right to the heart of this industry.</p></blockquote><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/01/23/dodd_accused_of_bribery_over_sopa_remarks/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/23/dodd_accused_of_bribery_over_sopa_remarks/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>40</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

