Blanked Out

The Ellison campaign just put on the best midnight madness literature drop rally I have ever seen. Roughly 400 people packed the Plaza Verde hall in south Minneapolis. The event was attended by an impressive list of electeds, candidates and other passionate Democrats: Jesse Jackson, Andy Luger, Al Franken, RT Rybak, Rebecca Otto, Jorge Saavedra, Scott Dibble, Karen Clark, Margaret Anderson Kelliher, Elizabeth Glidden, Robert Liligren and many others.

It was also the most diverse crowd I’ve ever seen at a political rally. From mohawks to hijabs, it would be difficult if not impossible to find any group that was not represented.

Need a jolt of energy before you go vote? Click on the picture to the left to see the intro to Keith.

MN Blue also has coverage of the rally and more pictures.

Minnesota Monitor story here.

MNCR hits upon the true concern surrounding the candidacy of Michelle Bachmann:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…..” Do you really think Michele Bachmann would pay attention to that?

Really?

Voters need not theorize on the answer. While most blogs and MSM devoting space to the “church endorsement” controversy, another video of Bachmann that provides important context to the debate is being overlooked:

[video]http://www.youtube.com/v/Damah0KH-Co[/video]

Bachmann is at most endorsing intelligent design and at least putting intelligent design (ID) at equal footing with evolution. Teaching ID as an alternative to evolution is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. (Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 2005). Bachmann again on ID: (emphasis added)

Q5: Should “Intelligent Design” be taught (along with Darwinian Theory) in the p science curriculum in public schools?

Bachmann: “We need to trust teachers and the local school boards in what they want to teach. The federal government has no business in moving toward censorship. Bachmann stated that Darwinian theory was by no means ironclad, and to be able to question its tenets (i.e., the secondary law of thermodynamics, the fossil record) is a move toward academic freedom. She stated that it should be up to faculty, students and parents to draw their own conclusions.

Bachmann is trying to use scientific terms to justify her untenable position - not unlike how ID pretends to be science but merely puts on the outer appearance of science.

The court decision left no room for debate in this regard - teaching ID as an alternative to evolution is a violation of the Constitution.

I have no issue with those who believe in creationism over evolution. In fact, I even agree with Bachmann up to a point. Students should “draw their own conclusions” in the inherent battle between science and faith. Creationism should be taught in schools - in World Religions class. Teaching ID in Biology would destroy both faith and science.

Remember, ID is not an incorrect theory - it’s not a theory at all. There can’t be any debate between ID and evolution because they live in different epistemologies. No one can prove or disprove ID because it makes no claims on who the “designer” is or how they designed all life on Earth.

This is a bipartisan issue, in four directions. Secularists should be against ID because of the harm it does to scientific principles. Theists need to be against ID because it erodes the very concept of faith (belief without physical proof). Both Republicans and Democrats should be against ID (and the politicians that enable it) because it betrays a willingness to support irrational and anti-Constitutional policy.

Hat tips to Dump Bachmann and Pharyngula for source links.

An email has been sent out on behalf of Junge that prominently features federal charter school support as a main reason for supporting Junge. MNCR has posted a section of the email. The highlight as I see it: (emphasis added)

NEED FOR DEMOCRATIC SUPPORT FOR CHARTERS IN THE CONGRESS: A number of important decisions on the future of the federal charter school grant program and other legislation of importance to charters will be made in the next several years - along with the overall reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind law. Ember wants to be a leading voice for charters in the Congress - a voice that’s sorely needed, especially among House Democrats.

The argument of this email is that there are not enough charter school supporting Democrats and that more are needed in Congress if important legislation is to pass.

The unspoken argument is that there is much greater support for charter schools among Republican members. Charter schools are often dependent on federal grant money for their start up costs.

If you support charter schools, this strategy of reaching across the aisle to create policy is perfectly acceptable. The above email originated from John Schroeder. Schroeder, along with Junge, is one of the nation’s most effective proponents of charter schools. Schroeder testified on the charter school federal grant program in 2000:

The ink was hardly dry on Minnesota’s pioneering charter school law when, in mid-1992, former U.S. Senator Dave Durenberger (R-MN) introduced what we then called the “Public School Redefinition Act,” creating a federal start-up grant program for charter schools. Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-CN) was the chief Democratic co-sponsor.

Junge often cited Lieberman’s “morality” as the reason she supported him. It is now clear that Junge’s support was fundamentally attached to Lieberman’s support of her policy legacy: charter schools.

Phoenix Woman, at Mercury Rising, points out the discrepancy between a new study showing charter schools underperforming public schools and a press release by Education Secretary Margaret Spellings.

The bottom line on the study:

It says, in short, that charter schools, as a whole, are not better than the public schools they compete against and often drain resources from. In fact, their students are often in worse shape academically than their public school counterparts.

Innovation should always be promoted, but with strict quality controls and accountability. Without responsibility, charter schools will simply begin to turn into the traditional public schools they hope to improve upon. Remember the rationale behind charter schools:

Exempt from many statutory and regulatory requirements, charter schools receive increased flexibility in exchange for high accountability for improving student academic achievement.

Are charter schools making good on their promise?

Minvovled has just put out a new poll of the DFL Primary race in the 5th CD.

It came from three separate sources, so the poll itself is probably legitimate.  The results make it clear the race is still in play, but not much else. This probably a good time to keep in mind that even the “likely voter” model has its failings.

If you missed Mark Blumenthal’s authoritative series on the likely voter model in 2004 you can find it here.  Mark’s blog, Mystery Pollster, is a required read for anyone who wants to interpret poll results.

On March 4th, 2005 Minnesota’s 5th Congressional District Republican Committee ceased to exist. It could no longer be active in federal elections unless it re-filed with the FEC. Currently, they have not re-filed.

On June 27th, 2006, Minnesota’s 5th Congressional District Republican Committee gave $5,000 to candidate Alan Fine. They listed their FEC ID number as C10001313.

FEC ID C10001313 belongs to the Republican Party of Minnesota (RPM).

To be honest, I don’t know yet if this is illegal or just a colossal mistake. Either way, the Republican Party along with the FEC need to give voters some much needed clarity on the issue.

Keep checking back to Blanked-Out.com for updates to this and other developing stories.

UPDATE: If anyone can a find a record of the RPM disclosing their contribution to Alan Fine, please post it in the comments ASAP. I’ve been looking and I can’t find any evidence of disclosure in their most recent FEC filing.

• If the RPM gave money to Fine, why have they not disclosed it?
• If the 5th CD Republicans gave money to Fine, why did they not re-file?

UPDATE: MDE has found the committee that gave the money to Fine. Instead of refiling, they created the Fifth CD Republican Committee instead of restarting the 5th CD Republican Committee.

One discrepancy still remains on Fine’s FEC report. The FEC ID number still points to the Republican Party of Minnesota. I can understand why Fine’s campaign might have been confused, as the Republican Party of Minnesota is the only contributor to the Fifth CD Republican Committee.

I’m sure Fine will file an amended disclosure with the corrected information any day now before the FEC needs to take any action. Thanks go out to MDE for helping a first time candidate avoid an uneccessary FEC fine. I couldn’t have done it without you Michael.

Why are Republican donors, including a Bush Pioneer, contributing to Ember Reichgott Junge’s campaign for Congress?

For some of Ember’s Republican supporters, including Bush Pioneer J.C. Huizenga , the answer may lie with Junge’s position as a nationally recognized proponent of charter schools.

In 1991, Junge made history by authoring and passing the nation’s first charter school legislation.

J.C. Huizenga is founder and chairman of National Heritage Academies (NHA), a for-profit educational management company based in Grand Rapids, MI. NHA was sued by the Michigan ACLU who accused NHA for evangelizing in the classroom and teaching creationism as science.

John Sackler, a Republican donor who has given considerable funds to George W. Bush, the RNC, Ted Stevens, Joe Lieberman and Ember Reichgott Junge can be seen here testifying for Connecticut’s General Assembly in support of charter schools.

In the “Education” section of Junge’s campaign website charter schools are never mentioned. Under the section labeled “The Gift of Public Service”, charter schools are mentioned once in item 6.

However, the section used to link to this page which featured charter schools prominently.

Why is Junge actively downplaying her support of charter schools?

UPDATE: MN Publius has their take here.

An in-depth analysis of Ember Reichgott Junge’s July 15 FEC disclosure reveals that Junge is funded by twenty-five donors who have no or little history giving to Democratic candidates. These donors have collectively contributed $233,400 since 2000 to Republican candidates, committees and PACs.

The recipients of these funds range from Mark Kennedy ($29,600) to George W. Bush ($13,500). Even the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), the committee “devoted to increasing the number of Republicans in Congress” has benefited ($18,600) from the same donors who are backing Junge.

Other candidates who received contributions are Tom Delay, Rick Santorum, Norm Coleman, John Kline, Ted Stevens and Roy Blunt.

Other committees and PACs who were given donations are the MNGOP, Minnesotans for a Republican Congress Committee, the Rally for Leadership Fund (John Kline), Club for Growth, Every Republican is Crucial PAC and the Majority Initiative to Keep Electing Republicans.

This analysis raises important questions regarding Junge’s campaign:

• Why are these donors who have supported Republicans nationwide for years suddenly supporting Junge?
• How were these donors contacted?
• What did Junge or her campaign say to convince these Republican donors to become Junge’s cash constituents?

An Excel spreadsheet summarizing the contributions can be found here.

A Word document that includes important additional commentary on the data can be found here.

Please read both documents before contacting me or commenting on the post.

UPDATE: MNCR weighs in with his analysis.

No, I’m not referring to all the legislative pork Gil’s been rubber stamping in Congress - I’m referring to the Other White Meat.

All hog producers have to pay a fee (or checkoff) every time they sell a hog - the vast majority of the funds go to the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC). In 2000 family farmers realized that the NPPC had moved away from supporting independent producers and was instead lobbying for the concerns of large factory farms. They decided to call a referendum to end the checkoff (scroll down to “Farmers vote to end pork checkoff”): (emphasis added)

The NPPC tried everything to stop this vote, including getting its allies in Congress to authorize an investigation into how the decision to hold the referendum was made. They were hoping the investigation would cast doubt on how the signatures were collected and whether Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman has the authority to call for a vote. U.S. Representative Gil Gutknecht was the only member of the Minnesota Congressional delegation to sign a letter requesting the investigation.

The result?

The investigation, which was conducted by the General Accounting Office (GAO), backfired on the NPPC and its allies. The GAO found that USDA grossly mishandled the petition process, that Glickman did indeed have the authority to call for a vote, and that checkoff funds (not taxpayer dollars) must be used to pay for the checkoff referendum. In other words, we were right and the NPPC was wrong.

Why did Gutknecht side against family farmers and indepdenent producers?

The PAC of the NPPC has contributed $3,500 to Gutknecht’s campaign in this election cycle alone and $7,500 since 1999. Gutknecht’s connections to other large agri-business lobbies are well documented.

Recently, controversy regarding agricultural checkoffs have resurfaced:

Do you know where your thousands — and on a national scale, hundreds of millions — of federally-mandated, non-refundable checkoff dollars go?

It’s a question Bobby King, policy director of Minnesota’s Land Stewardship Project, asked when he viewed advertisements that attacked “anti-livestock activist groups” in the state on Minneapolis’ powerhouse WCCO TV station earlier this year.

The 30-second ads, says King, had an unmistakably political message. “To build the case that there’s a crisis in livestock production here,” he explains from his Twin Cities office, “because Minnesota law gives counties and townships authority over livestock facility siting.”

Since Gutknecht’s agriculture section on his campaign web site does not provide any substance, only Gutknecht himself can explain why he sided with big business over the family farm and independent producers.

UPDATE: WCCO’s Pat Kessler just released a thorough “Reality Check” on the upcoming checkoff controversy:

“Have you ever wondered what challenges Minnesota farmers face from anti-livestock activist groups?” the TV ad asks. “These groups operate by spreading misinformation and fear. They talk about local control, but it’s really a self serving, selective and arbitrary denial of business growth they’re after.”
This is MISLEADING. The ad, produced by WCCO-TV’s sales department, mixes phony newspaper headlines, a fake petition and protest photo, with one real image of a dead rat on a county commissioner’s door.

It targets unspecified “anti-livestock” and “environmental activist groups” that the ad sponsor refused to identify for Reality Check.

The video is top notch and the article is full of additional references. The groups funding these ads want to frame the debate in their favor by stealing the cloak of rural populism. Don’t let them do it - get the facts for yourself.