The 10 Biggest Corporate Campaign Contributors in U.S. Politics

(Thanks to my Google Buzz friend Jessica for the share)

***

by Bruce Watson  10/13/10

As the midterm elections slowly draw nearer, we're taking a look at the companies whose deep pockets help keep America's political campaigns rolling along. With the help from data compiled by the nonpartisan folks at the Center for Responsive Politics, we've combined a list of the top 10 corporate campaign contributors, offering a a view of the candidates they support, the issues that concern them and their lobbying habits.

Here are 10 companies that give America the best elections that money can buy, arranged in ascending order by campaign dollars contributed between 1989 and 2010.

10. Lockheed Martin (LMT) -- $19.3 million  (Defense contractor/war profiteer)

Military contracts are lucrative, and Lockheed Martin -- the country's top defense contractor -- has landed a passel of them. But big-ticket deals like the Joint Strike Fighter don't come cheap, and Lockheed has spent over $19 million in political races since 1989. Meanwhile, its yearly lobbying expenditure ranges between $7 million and $15 million. Thus far in 2010, it has spread $6.7 million around the halls of Congress.

Lockheed's support goes to Congressmen and Senators on both sides of the ideological divide. This year, two of its top five congressional vassals are Republicans Howard McKeon (Calif.) and Kay Granger (Texas). The other three are Democrats Charles Schumer (N.Y.), Ike Skelton (Mo.) and Daniel Inouye (Hawaii).

9. Morgan Stanley (MS) -- $19.8 million  (Wall St. banksters)

When it comes to campaign fund-raising, the financial industry is far and away the biggest contributor, and its continuous lobbying over the past 20 years has borne considerable fruit. Morgan Stanley, one of the U.S.'s top investment banks, was among the biggest supporters of securities industry deregulation and Social Security privatization. To that end, it has poured almost $20 million into political contests since 1989. Not surprisingly, it was also a major beneficiary of bailout money in 2008.

For most of the past decade, Morgan Stanley has steadily increased its lobbying expenditures, from just over $1 million in 2001 to almost $3 million in 2009. Republicans and Democrats both benefit from its campaign largesse: In this election cycle, the company's top contributions have been to Republican Carly Fiorina (Calif.), and its second-biggest gift has been to Democrat Kiersten Gillibrand (N.Y.). Democrats Harry Reid (Nev.) and Reshma Saujani (N.Y.) join Republican Richard Shelby (Ala.) in rounding out the company's five favorite politicos.

8. Time Warner (TWX) -- $20 million  (Major Player in the Net Neutrality debate)

A media colossus with fingers in dozens of pies, Time Warner's interests extend from baseball to periodicals, books to movies, and its lobbying is similarly wide-ranging. Between 1989 and 2010, the company gave some $20 million to candidates, the vast majority of whom were Democrats. Currently, the company's top five contribution recipients are Patrick Leahy (Vt.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Howard Berman (Calif.), Harry Reid (Nev), and Charles Schumer (N.Y.). All are Democrats.

Time Warner also pays a lot of money to lobbyists. Since 2003, it has averaged between $4 million and $6 million per year, with an $8 million spike in 2008. Thus far in 2010, it has paid out over $1.7 million to more than 300 lobbyists.


7. JPMorgan (JPM) -- $20.3 million  (Another bankster from Wall St.)

Another top financial services firm, JPMorgan Chase has contributed over $20 million to political campaigns since 1989. Its favorites are split evenly between Democrats and Republicans, and its donations influence contests around the country. Currently, the company's top five beneficiaries include New York Democrats Kirsten Gillibrand and Scott Murphy, as well as Arkansas Democrat Blanche Lincoln, Alabama Republican Richard Shelby, and Illinois Republican Mark Kirk.

JPMorgan also spends heavily on lobbying. For most of the 2000s, its yearly contribution to K Street coffers has ranged between $4 million and $6 million. Thus far in 2010, it has spent just over $3 million. As with most other banks and financial services companies, Morgan's money has gone to influence banking deregulation and bankruptcy reform rules. Morgan, too, was a major beneficiary of government bailout money.

6. Microsoft (MSFT) -- $21 million  (Net Neutrality, smart phones, suffered many an anti-trust suit)

A relatively late arrival to the political contribution game, Microsoft was quick to learn the lessons of Beltway power-peddling. Following its antitrust trial in 1998, the company set up a lobbying office in D.C. and made it clear that it was open for business. Since 2000, it has poured over $2 million into each election cycle, hitting its height in 2000 and 2002, when its contributions topped $4 million. At the same time, Microsoft has also funneled a fortune into lobbying, sending more than $6 million per year to K Street since 2000 and more than $8 million per year from 2003 to 2008.

For the most part, Microsoft's money has gone to Democrat candidates from the Pacific Northwest. This year, it has poured over $110,000 each into the candidacies of Suzan DelBene and Patty Murray, and has also liberally funded Jay R. Inslee and Republican Dave Reichert, all of Washington. Over the last few years, however, Microsoft's political giving has slowly trended downward as the memories of its 2008 inquisition have faded.

5. Altria (MO) -- $24.3 million  (Largest food processor in the world)


Formerly known as Philip Morris, Altria is the top tobacco company in the world, as well as a major shareholder (and former owner) of Kraft Foods (KFT). Much of the $24 million that Altria spent between 1989 and 2010 went toward protecting the company against devastating legislation and lawsuits. Recently, however, Altria recently shifted its position, publicly endorsing a move by the Food and Drug Administration to regulate nicotine as a drug. This has placed it in opposition to many of its fellow tobacco companies. At the same time, the roughly $2.7 million in "soft money" that Altria spent in each election cycle from 1996-2002 has dried up.

Still, Altria remains a major player in the realm of government influencing. With yearly lobbying expenditures of more than $10 million, it's keeping its D.C. friends very close. In the 2010 election cycle, Altria's donations have largely gone to Republican congressional and senatorial candidates, especially Mitch McConnell (Kent.), Richard Burr (N.C.), Roy Blunt (Mo.) and Eric Cantor (Va.). One Democrat, Virginia's James Webb, rounds out the top five candidates drawing Altria support.

4. United Parcel Service (UPS) -- $24.9 million

For decades, UPS and Fed Ex (FDX) (which would be No. 13 on the list) have poured money into government lobbying, each seeking to gain a strategic business advantage over the other. But their similarities may outweigh their differences: Both have fought legislation that would make it easier for the U.S. Postal Service to sell valuable overnight and second-day air services. Similarly, both strongly support free-trade agreements because these deals encourage greater overseas shipping.

UPS's political contributions -- totaling almost $25 million between 1989 and 2010 -- skew toward Republican candidates. They have also remained remarkably consistent, hovering around $2.6 million through the last four election cycles. This year, the delivery company's top five campaign contributions are fairly closely split, with just under $28,000 going to Democrats Steny Hoyer (Md.) and Blanche Lincoln (Ark.), while $32,250 is going to Republicans Aaron Schock (Ill.), Todd Tiahrt (Kan.) and Roy Blunt (Mo.).

3. Citigroup (C) -- $27.5 million  (Bankster extraordinaire!)

The second-biggest campaign contributor from the financial services sector, Citigroup has given more than $27 million to a fairly even slate of Democrat and Republican candidates. Its spending spiked in the 2008 election cycle, when it contributed almost $5 million to various candidates. Today, its contributions are way down.

Citi's lobbying efforts are also declining from a high of more than $8 million in 2007. Thus far in 2010, it has spent just over $3 million. It has also spent locally. In 2010, three of its top five candidates were New York Democrats: Senators Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand and Representative Joseph Crowley.

2. Goldman Sachs (GS) -- $36.7 million  (King of all Wall St. bankster criminals)

One of Wall Street's largest -- and most notorious -- banks, Goldman Sachs is also the biggest political contributor from the financial services arena. Between 1989 and 2010, it gave more than $36.7 million to political candidates and spent roughly $1 million per year on lobbying through most of the early 2000s. Starting in 2004, however, its political spending went through the roof. Its budget for the 2004 election cycle was 45% higher than four years earlier. While its contributions dropped off slightly in 2008, they still represented a 36% jump over 2000's expenditures.

Goldman's impressive lobbying effort leaped into overdrive in 2006, when its payouts to politicos more than doubled. Since then, the bank has kept up its heavy lobbying payments, which topped $3 million in 2008. At the same time, it has benefited greatly from financial deregulation -- which it strongly supports -- and government bailouts, which it accepted in 2008. In the 2009/2010 election season, most of its money has gone to Democrat candidates, including Nevada's Harry Reid and New York Representative Michael McMahon, although it has also contributed mightily to Republican Roy Blunt of Missouri.

1. AT&T (T) -- $45.6 million  (Net Neutrality player, complicit in NSA spying on US citizens)

Between 1989 and 2010, AT&T gave more than $45 million in campaign donations to both Republican and Democrat candidates. In the 2009-2010 cycle, its biggest contribution was $30,000 to the campaign of Nevada Senator Harry Reid, but three Republican congressmen -- Joe Wilson of South Carolina, Pete Olson of Texas and Roy Blunt of Missouri -- were among its top five. While impressive, however, these contributions were dwarfed by AT&T's lobbying expenses, which topped $25 million in 2006 alone.


It isn't hard to see why the phone company is willing to open its wallet for Congress. After its early-1980s antitrust breakup, Ma Bell has spent the last few decades putting itself back together again. Today, it's the largest land-based phone carrier, the largest cellular carrier and the 13th-largest company in the U.S. In 2006, as AT&T's political giving reached its apex, the company bought Bell South, a major piece of the post-breakup puzzle. Coincidence?

The Making of The WALKING DEAD

vidlink

Republican Senator Introduces The HARVEST Act To Protect Agribusiness Abuse Of Captive Labor

Firedog Lake - Wednesday October 13, 2010

Georgia Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss introduced a Agribusiness bill to the Senate last week. The HARVEST act: here

Read the Harvest act "press release":

The Harvest act would deny any path for citizenship to farm workers. Instead, even if they work year-round they would have no claims to citizenship. This means that laborers from other countries will never be citizens with the benefits of citizens.

Second the Harvest act would streamline the lie that farm work is accessible to citizens. The Harvest act seeks to blame american workers for reason they aren’t working on the farm. Read Dan Rather’s piece here.

H-2a Labor is captive labor. Such laborers live in an unheated shed, often without bedding. They eat whatever the farmer gives them. The farmer then charges room and board and transportation against their wages. The other part of Captive labor is the threat of unemployment. H-2a labor employees can be terminated at will. How exactly are terminated employees supposed to get home? How are they even going to collect a paycheck after they are fired. Captive indeed.

We know this story. Giant farms get to write the legislation they need and damn the public interest.

Majority of voters say they want a viable third party in American politics

By Sean J. Miller - 10/13/10 - The Hill

A majority of likely voters think a viable third party would be good for American politics, according to a new poll of likely voters in 10 key open House districts.

Those voters are split, however, on whether the Tea Party should be that alternative.

Fifty-four percent of respondents in The Hill 2010 Midterm Election Poll said they’d like an alternative to the Democrats and Republicans.

That number rose to 67 percent for self-identified independents. But even a plurality in the established parties — 49 percent of Democrats and 46 percent of Republicans — said they’d like another choice.

“That’s probably the strongest number I’ve seen in a poll of people in America saying that they're interested in a third party,” said pollster Mark Penn.

“There’s a record number of Independents and a record number of people looking for a possible third party,” he said. “And that’s a big finding. There’s an opportunity here.”

The Hill’s poll was conducted by Penn Schoen Berland, which surveyed 4,047 likely voters in 10 open districts. The overall sample has a margin of error of plus or minus 1.5 percent.

“I think there’s a greater potential for a third party than perhaps [at] any time in our history,” said Mark McKinnon, a Republican strategist and former adviser to George W. Bush. “There is a very broad level of dissatisfaction throughout the electorate — right, left and middle.

“I think what’s happened goes beyond general dissatisfaction with the economy,” he added. “They want a new way — they want to feel empowered again.”

The rise of the Tea Party movement — a mishmash of disparate organizations under one umbrella — serves as one of the strongest signals that the public is dissatisfied with Democratic and Republican government. But asked if they thought the Tea Party should be the new third party, voters divided. More than two-thirds of Democrats and 42 percent of independents said no. But 55 percent of Republicans said yes, which is perhaps a sign of dissatisfaction among rank-and-file GOPers, and also an acknowledgement that the Tea Party is fueling what appears to be a Republican wave this cycle.

McKinnon said the Tea Party movement is just the “tip of the spear” in the push for a third party.

“They’ve just unlocked the door,” he said. “And voters are kicking the door open.”

The next presidential election, in 2012, could see a third-party contender, McKinnon noted.

“I think, professionally speaking, it’s more likely to happen in a presidential year.”

Several third parties have risen to prominence, most notably as spoilers in presidential elections. In 1912, former President Theodore Roosevelt made an unsuccessful bid to reclaim the White House by running on the Progressive ticket.

More recently, Ross Perot ran under the Reform Party banner vote in the 1992 presidential election, capturing almost 20 percent of the popular vote, which helped Bill Clinton topple President George H.W. Bush.

Ralph Nader made several presidential runs as a Green Party candidate, but his most notable feat was siphoning votes away from Vice President Al Gore in 2000. Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and others have also made runs for the presidency — with modest success — under the Libertarian Party banner.

For a third party to arise, it would need to be driven by a compelling personality, according to Ross Baker, a political science professor at Rutgers University.

“If there were a single individual identified with the third party — a Teddy Roosevelt, a Ross Perot — you would have a personality to attract people,” he said.

Baker doubted a third-party candidate could capture the White House — or even win a typical congressional race.

“At the presidential level, historically, they’re spoilers,” Baker explained. “At the state level, less so, because people are much more dependent on party label to make a decision. The information level is very low — so as a consequence, [third parties] don’t have much of an impact.

“The franchise matters. It gives people voting cues when there’s no other information available.”

Baker said he doubted the Tea Party would ever become a viable political party. “You vote for a Democrat, a Republican, you know what you’re getting. You vote for a Tea Party person, you could be getting a pig in a poke,” he said.

Tea Party activists say their movement is unwilling to be co-opted into the traditional party structure anyway.

“Not only no, but hell no,” Judson Phillips, the founder of the group Tea Party Nation, said when asked about the prospect of forming a third party.

“Third parties are simply an invitation to disaster,” he said. “All a third party does is split the vote. “I am yet to meet anyone who wants to have the Tea Party as a [political party],” he said — the more appealing prospect is to “take over” the Republican Party.

The Tea Party Nation organized a national conference in Nashville in February and had one planned for October in Las Vegas. But in a sign of how difficult it is to sustain such a disparate grassroots movement, the Las Vegas conference was called off.

“People weren’t willing to buy tickets,” Phillips said. “We just didn’t have the drive that we had for the first one.”

Meanwhile, McKinnon pointed to the unpredictability of the U.S. political system as one reason why the launch of a third party shouldn’t be discounted.

“The great thing about American politics is we turn conventional wisdom on its ear,” he said.

Obama Lifts Moratorium on Offshore Drilling

Washington • President Barack Obama’s announcement Wednesday that he’ll lift bans on new drilling for oil and natural gas off much of the U.S. coastline drew criticism from environmentalists and halfhearted welcomes from Republicans, even as Obama called it only one part of a broad strategy to reduce foreign oil dependence and enact climate change policy.

His administration will allow further study and new drilling to proceed from Delaware to Florida, starting with leases off the Virginia coast, as well as off the oil-rich eastern Gulf of Mexico. Some sensitive areas would be protected, including Alaska’s fish-rich Bristol Bay, a decision that conservationists applauded, while other waters off northern Alaska can be considered. No expanded drilling is being considered off the West Coast below Canada.

“This is not a decision that I’ve made lightly,” Obama said at Maryland’s Andrews Air Force Base, near the capital. He was staged beside the Green Hornet, a Navy fighter jet designed to run on a fuel mix of half biomass. He also discussed administration policies to make automobiles more fuel-efficient and to develop “clean coal” and alternative energy supplies.

Obama said his plan “is part of a broader strategy that will move us from an economy that runs on fossil fuels and foreign oil to one that relies more on homegrown fuels and clean energy. And the only way this transition will succeed is if it strengthens our economy in the short term and long term. To fail to recognize this reality would be a mistake.”

The policy’s framework fits Obama’s governing style: To accomplish a liberal goal, in this case climate change legislation, take a centrist stance that may appeal to enough Republicans to win some bipartisan support, or at least justify action without bipartisan support.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., part of a bipartisan team working on compromise climate change legislation in Congress, said of Obama’s remarks, “I intend to answer the call by working with my Republican and Democratic Senate colleagues to put our nation on a pathway to energy independence and a cleaner environment.”

Conservationists warned of risks to beaches, seafood, polar bears, whales and other wildlife.

Frank Tursi, of the North Carolina Coastal Federation, called Obama’s calculation to get a climate change bill that reduces greenhouse gases by supporting more development of domestic fossil fuel “a delicious irony. He’s now allowing increased production of the very substance responsible for the emissions.”

“I would say that this comprehensive approach is a lot less ‘Drill, baby, drill’ and more ‘Drill where it’s responsible, promote efficiency, invest in clean energy and create jobs of the future,’ ” White House deputy press secretary Bill Burton said. “I know that doesn’t fit on a T-shirt quite as well, but that’s a lot more about what President Obama thinks is the right direction for this country.”

Will the squeeze on workers ever end?

Corporate America is taking advantage of the bleak employment picture to carry out an offensive to further drive down wages and living standards for workers.

October 13, 2010

THE LATEST government statistics on employment and jobs are in--and they're appallingly bad.
Not only has hiring in the private sector slowed down--again--but public-sector jobs are evaporating at a record pace. According to the Labor Department, companies added just 64,000 jobs last month--down from 93,000 in August and 117,000 in July. Overall, the economy shed 95,000 non-farm jobs in September, with 159,000 government jobs lost at all levels. Local governments cut employment at the fastest rate in almost 30 years.

As Heidi Schierholz of the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) noted:

The pain of the state and local budget problems are clear in these numbers: of the 83,000 state and local jobs lost, 58,000 were in education, as teachers and other education workers were not called back for the new school year. September was the first month this year where, barring changes in temporary Census workers, the labor market lost jobs.

The official unemployment rate has now been at or above 9.5 percent for a year and two months--the longest stretch since the Great Depression of the 1930s.

In September, 14.8 million Americans were without a job--and 6.1 million of them have been unemployed for more than six months. And the real picture is even worse than the official statistics show. Adding in those who have given up looking for work or who are working part time but want full time work, underemployment rises to 17.1 million--the highest number since last December.

As bleak as last month's employment figures were, the Obama White House was still trying to maintain the fantasy that the economy is recovering. At an appearance at a factory in Bladensburg, Md., Obama himself told reporters: "We've now seen nine straight months of private-sector job growth." The president barely acknowledged that more jobs were lost overall than were created.

In fact, the loss of government jobs is only expected to get worse in the coming months. "In a research note," reported McClatchy Newspapers, "Alan Levenson, the chief economist for investment manager T. Rowe Price, noted that 'downsizing at state (and) local governments began later than in private industries, and will restrain the rebound in total employment even if...private industry hiring picks up gradually in the months ahead.'"

For millions of workers and their families, the idea that the U.S. is experiencing an "economic recovery" is a bad joke.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

ONE REASON for the especially bleak jobs statistics last month is the tapering off of federal stimulus spending from the $787 billion measure passed within a month of Barack Obama taking office in 2009. Without that legislation, the unemployment rate would be even higher--by 2 percentage points, according to the Congressional Budget Office's estimate. But the politicians still haven't responded to the need for more spending.

"We need to wake up to the fact that the end of the stimulus has really hit hard on local governments," Andrew Stettner, deputy director of the National Employment Law Project, told the New York Times. "There is much more of a slide in the job market than what we really need to clearly turn around."

Republicans--in love, as always, with rhetoric about "fiscal responsibility"--are firmly opposed to further stimulus spending--or any increase in taxes on the rich. "The word 'stimulus' itself," reported the Times, "seems to have become politically toxic in the lead-up to the midterm Congressional elections next month."

For his part, Obama criticized Republicans, claiming, for example, that they held up legislation like the "Small Business Jobs Act" (which Obama recently signed into law) as well as loans and tax cuts to small businesses.

Last time we checked, though, the Democrats still have large majorities in both houses of Congress. So blaming the lack of action on Republicans seems like an exercise in shifting the blame.

More importantly, the proposals by Democrats for legislation that will create jobs are a drop in the bucket compared to what's needed. The Small Business Jobs Act will do next to nothing to benefit workers directly. Instead of programs that create employment or spending for infrastructure projects that would put people to work, the Obama administration is relying on the economic dogma repeated endlessly by its Republican predecessor--tax breaks for business.
The result is the weak employment statistics we've seen all year long. As Sheirholz pointed out in the EPI's statement, even when the jobs numbers have been in positive territory, they fall far short of what's needed to make up for the jobs lost during the recession. "To get down to the pre-recession unemployment rate within five years," Sheirholz said, "the labor market would have to add around 300,000 jobs every month for that entire [five-year period]. In September, excluding changes in temporary Census hiring, the labor market lost 18,000."

Meanwhile, one of the few effective job creation measures from the economic stimulus bill--a $1 billion program that directly paid the salaries of unemployed people so they could work in government jobs, or at nonprofit organizations and some small businesses--recently ran out of funds, without being extended by Congress. The program had provided 235,000 jobs in 36 states for low-income parents and young adults. If funding isn't restored, some 26,000 workers in Illinois and 12,000 workers in Pennsylvania will lose their jobs in the coming weeks, along with thousands more in other states.

Government programs like this one should have been a bigger part of the stimulus law from the start. Instead, they paled in comparison to corporate tax breaks--and they were positively dwarfed by the trillions of dollars committed to bailing out Wall Street.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

THE REALLY infuriating thing about all the talk in Washington about belt-tightening and fiscal responsibility--from Republicans and Democrats alike--is that public opinion is so obviously on the side of government programs to create more jobs.

According to a Washington Post/ABC News poll from July, 48 percent of people surveyed said that they thought "the federal government should spend more money to try to boost the economy in a way that creates jobs."

Yet Republicans--despite the fact that they promise to oppose all further stimulus spending, and repeal any measures that haven't yet been put into effect--appear poised to win big in November.

That's the result of the failure of Democrats to put forward programs and policies that would help in the lives of working people. From the bailout of Wall Street that neglected homeowners facing foreclosure, to health care legislation that will make the insurance industry more powerful rather than less, to the threat of cuts in Social Security benefits, millions of people are finding Obama's "Yes we can" slogan to be a hollow promise.

Of course, some people are doing great in today's economy--the people who caused the crisis in the first place.

For the second year in a row, according to the Wall Street Journal, compensation packages for bankers will hit an all-time high:

About three dozen of the top publicly held securities and investment-services firms--which include banks, investment banks, hedge funds, money-management firms and securities exchanges--are set to pay $144 billion in compensation and benefits this year, a 4 percent increase from the $139 billion paid out in 2009, according to the survey. Compensation was expected to rise at 26 of the 35 firms.

This boom in profits isn't a coincidence. It's a direct result of Corporate America taking advantage of the bleak picture for working people.

High unemployment is being used against workers to drive down wages that were already stagnant for a generation--and to undermine the remaining benefits and protections that workers have, whether union members or not. The threats against teachers to accept wage cuts and layoffs, along with "reform" measures that weaken their unions; the blackmail used to extract concessions from industrial workers; the relentless pressure on those who still have a job to work harder for less--all these and more are part of an overall offensive by the U.S. ruling class.
The goal is to force U.S. workers--whether their employer is a private company or the government at any level--to accept a "new normal": declining living standards and wages.

Meanwhile, according to the Wall Street Journal, "Wall Street revenue is expected to rise 3 percent, to $448 billion from $433 billion, despite a slowdown in some high-profile activities like stock and bond trading...Profits, which were depressed by losses in the past two years, have bounced back from the 2008 crisis."

Too bad workers' jobs haven't bounced back--and the politicians in Washington have absolutely no solution.

FBI Expands Terrorism Definition To Nonviolent Civil Disobedience

by Tom Hayden.com - Wednesday, October 13, 2010

Anyone interested in domestic spying on peace and justice activists should study carefully the September 2010 report of the Inspector General of the Department of Justice, blandly titled "A Review of the FBI's Investigations of Certain Domestic Advocacy Groups."

The 200-page report, while generally sedating in tone, includes important analyses of spying in 2002 on the Thomas Merton Center in Pittsburg, the 2003 Miami protests against the Free Trade Zone of the Americas [FTAA], Catholic Worker protests at recruitment offices and military bases, Greenpeace civil disobedience, and animal rights protest activities.

The report poses a dramatic question of "whether the FBI has expanded the definition of domestic terrorism to people who engage in mainstream political activity, including nonviolent protest and civil disobedience."[1]

The technical classification involves any investigation of a criminal act by an individual “who seeks to further political and/or social goals wholly or in part through activities that involve the use of force or violence and violate federal law.”

Any conspiracy to throw rocks, spray paint an armed forces recruitment center, or trespass on a US military base, could classify as a domestic terrorist offence.

Anyone classified as a “domestic terrorist” is placed on a Terrorist Watch List, for example, in the Violent Gang and Terrorist Offender File [VGTOF], a database used by local police in the course of traffic stops.

The report also notes critically the expanding definitions that automatically trigger pre-emptive action by the FBI against local protests. The FBI’s Manual of Investigative Operations & Guidelines [MIOG, part 1, 300-1[2] defines such a “special event” as one “which, by virtue of its profile and/or status, represents an attractive target for terrorist attack.” Under this rationale, the FBI can open files on individuals “associated with groups known to have previously protested at similar events.”[2]

The FBI mentality seems to have changed little since the Manichean days of Cold War anti-communism. For example, one FBI email, entitled “To report results of Pittsburg anti-war activity,” which was illegal on the face of it, went on to describe the Thomas Merton Center as “a left-wing organization advocating, among many political causes, pacificism [sic].” For the FBI Pittsburg office, this was suspicious stuff.

The Inspector General report downplays the scope of domestic spying in general, in part because the expanded definitions make investigations more permissible. Even so, the actual spying activity in the case of the Merton Center is belittled as a one-time case of “poor judgment” involving photographs and reports filed on a single individual.

This is not the report of a real watchdog with teeth, but more like a cautionary commentary by an advisory agency. For example, the IG recommends that the FBI simply “clarify” when First Amendment offenses become “acts of terrorism”, noting that trespassing and vandalism cases have not been defined traditionally as “terrorism.” The IG does not condemn the definitional creep.

But if the FBI’s transgressions are minor ones, the report’s overall conclusion is extremely serious: the FBI, including Director Robert Mueller, repeatedly made “false and misleading statements to Congress and the public.”[3] If the FBI engaged in covering up the small stuff, how can they ever be candid regarding major cover operations against domestic anti-war groups? 

---

[1] A Review of the FBI's Invesigations of Certain Domestic Advocacy Groups. Oversight and Review Division: Office of the Inspector General, September 2010, p. 23.
[2] Ibid., p. 150.
[3] Ibid., p. 66.

U.S. Chamber of Commerce Receives At Least $885,000 From Over 80 Foreign Companies In Disclosed Donations Alone

Last week, ThinkProgress published an exclusive story about the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s foreign fundraising operation. We noted the Chamber raises money from foreign-owned businesses for its 501(c)(6) entity, the same account that finances its unprecedented $75 million dollar partisan attack ad campaign. While the Chamber is notoriously secretive, the thrust of our story involved the disclosure of fundraising documents U.S. Chamber staffers had been distributing to solicit foreign (even state-owned) companies to donate directly to the Chamber’s 501(c)(6).

We documented three different ways the Chamber fundraises from foreign corporations: (1) An internal fundraising program called “Business Councils” used to solicit direct, largely foreign contributions to the Chamber, (2) Direct contributions from foreign multinationals like BP, Siemens, and Shell Oil, and (3) From the Chamber’s network of AmCham affiliates, which are foreign chambers of the Chamber composed of American and foreign companies. The Chamber quickly acknowledged that it receives direct, foreign money, but simply replied, “We are not obligated to discuss our internal procedures.” Instead of providing any documentation or proof to demonstrate foreign money is not being used for electioneering purposes, the Chamber launched an aggressive media strategy to first, attack ThinkProgress with petty name-calling and second, to confuse the media by highlighting the Chamber’s relatively minor AmCham fundraising, which the Chamber says (also without documentation) totals “approximately $100,000” from all 115 international AmCham chapters. The Chamber and the media largely ignored ThinkProgress’ revelation about the Chamber’s direct foreign fundraising to its 501(c)(6) used for attack ads.

Yesterday, the Chamber’s chief lobbyist Bruce Josten, who has been spoon-feeding much of the media distortions about our report, went on Fox News (whose parent company donated $1 million to the Chamber recently for its ad campaign) to again try to dilute the issue by dissembling about the Chamber’s fundraising and membership. “We have probably 60 or so foreign multi-national companies in our membership that we have had for decades, many of which have been in the United States for half a century or a century,” said Josten.

The Chamber is being deceptive. In addition to multinational members of the Chamber headquartered abroad (like BP, Shell Oil, and Siemens), a new ThinkProgress investigation has identified at least 84 other foreign companies that actively donate to the Chamber’s 501(c)(6). Below is a chart detailing the annual dues foreign corporations have indicated that they give directly to the Chamber (using information that is publicly available from the Business Council applications and the Chamber’s own websites):

Company	Location	Money/Level
4G Identity Solutions	Hyderabad, India	$7,500
A2Z Maintenance & Eng.	Gurgaon, India	$7,500
Amarchand Mangaldas	Mumbai, India	$15,000
Apollo Hospitals	Chennai, India	$7,500
Arshiya International	Mumbai, India	$15,000
Astonfield Management	Mumbai, India	$7,500
AXA Group	Paris, France	$7,500
Avantha Group	India	$7,500
Avasarala Technologies	Bangalore, India	$7,500
AZB & Partners	Mumbai, India	$15,000
Azure Power	New Delhi, India	$7,500
Bharat Forge	Pune, India	$15,000
Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP	Toronto, Canada	$7,500
Brookfield Asset Management	Toronto, Canada	$7,500
Cameco Corporation	Saskatoon, Canada	$7,500
Credit Suisse	Zürich, Switzerland	$15,000
Devas Multimedia	Bangalore, India	$15,000
DSK Legal	Bombay, India	$7,500
Dua Associates	Hyderabad, India	$15,000
Educomp Solutions Ltd	Delhi, India	$7,500
Essar Group	Mumbai, India	$7,500
Fox Mandal Little	India	$7,500
GMR	Bangalore, India	$15,000
Hindalco Group, The	Mumbai, India	$15,000
Hinduja Group, The	London, UK	$15,000
Hindustan Construction Company	Mumbai, India	$15,000
HSBC	London, UK	$15,000
ICICI Bank	Mumbia, India	$7,500
Infosys	Bangalore, India	$15,000
Infotech Enterprises	Hyderabad, India	$7,500
International SOS Assistance	Singapore	$7,500
Ireo Management	Gurgoan, India	$15,000
ITC Group	Kolkata, India	$15,000
J. Sagar Associates	Mumbai, India	$15,000
J.B.Boda Insurance	Mumbai, India	$7,500
J.M. Baxi & Co.	Mumbai, India	$15,000
Jagran Prakashan	Kanpur, India	$7,500
Jindal Power	New Delhi, India	$15,000
Jubilant Organosys	Noida, India	$7,500
Kimaya Energy	New Delhi, India	$15,000
Kotak Mahindra	Mumbai, India	$7,500
KPIT Cummins	Pune, India	$7,500
KPMG	Amstelveen, Netherlands	$15,000
Lahmeyer International	Frankfurt, Germany	$7,500
Larsen & Toubro	Mumbai, India	$15,000
Leela Hotels	Bengaluru, India	$7,500
Linklaters LLP	London, UK	$7,500
Luthra & Luthra	New Delhi, India	$15,000
Macquarie Capital	Sydney, Australia	$15,000
Majmudar & Company	Mumbai, India	$7,500
NIIT Technologies	Delhi, India	$15,000
Nishith Desai Associates	Mumbai, India	$15,000
Novartis	Basel, Switzerland	$15,000
Oberoi Group	Dehli,India	$7,500
Patni Americas	Mumbai, India	$15,000
Punj Lloyd	Gurgaon, India	$15,000
QuEST Global	Singapore	$7,500
Ranbaxy, Inc.	Gurgaon, India	$7,500
Reliance Industries	Mumbai, India	$15,000
Reliance Communications	Navi Mumbai, India	$7,500
Rolta	Mumbai, India	$7,500
Sanofi-Aventis	Paris, France	$7,500
SKP Crossborder Consulting	Mumbai, India	$7,500
SNC Lavalin	Montreal, Canada	$7,500
State Bank of India	Mumbai, India	$15,000
Sun Life Financial	Toronto, Canada	$7,500
Tata Group	Mumbai, India	$15,000
Tatva Legal	India	$15,000
Urenco Investments	Slough, UK	$7,500
Trilegal	India	$7,500
Walchandnagar Industries	Mumbai, India	$7,500
Welspun	Mumbai, India	$7,500
Wipro	Bangalore, India	$15,000
TAIB Bank*	Dubai	$20,000
Aluminum Bahrain B.S.C	Kingdom of Bahrain	$10,000
Bahrain Financial Harbour Holding Company	Kingdom of Bahrain	$10,000
Gulf Air	Kingdom of Bahrain	$10,000
Midal Cables	Kingdom of Bahrain	$10,000
The Nass Group	Kingdom of Bahrain	$10,000
Bahrain Maritime & Mercantile International	Kingdom of Bahrain	$5,000
The Bahrain Petroleum Company	Kingdom of Bahrain	$5,000
First Leasing Bank	Kingdom of Bahrain	$5,000
Gulf Petrochemical Industries Company	Kingdom of Bahrain	$5,000
TOTAL		$885,000

Again, all of these annual dues are collected in the same 501(c)(6) the Chamber is using to run partisan attack ads. The data above reflects information from public sources, and the Chamber likely has many more foreign corporations as dues-paying members — but refuses to divulge any of the funders for their ad campaign. Unfortunately, many reporters in the traditional press covered the Chamber story, but missed the entire point of our reporting. Most reporters (from the New York Times, McClatchy, the Associated Press, etc.) never contacted ThinkProgress, instead opting to only interview Chamber officials.

Here’s how the Chamber’s unusual foreign fundraising operation works. According to this internal Chamber staff chart obtained by ThinkProgress, the Chamber has an international division devoted to promoting free trade and related policy issues. U.S. Chamber staffers, based here in Washington, D.C. with offices in the Chamber’s building at 1615 H Street, create bilateral “Business Councils” fundraising programs to solicit money from foreign corporations in Korea, Egypt, Brazil, Bahrain, India, and other places. For instance, the Chamber’s US-Egypt Business Council directs potential members to wire their checks to the US Chamber of Commerce. The application also notes that checks should be marked “ATTN: Leila Vossoughi.” Vossaoughi is a regular staffer at the Chamber. Promotions to join the Chamber have included promises that foreign firms obtain “access to the US Chamber of Commerce and everything that it does” and pledges to help the foreign firms promote free trade policies in America. All of the staffers who manage the Business Councils work directly for the Chamber. These Business Councils are nothing like the Chamber’s AmChams, which are foreign affiliates of the Chamber composed of American and foreign businesses abroad. Business Councils are based in the Chamber and even hosted on the U.S. Chamber’s website domain. Bylaws from the US-Bahrain Business Council confirm that the money the U.S. Chamber raises from these applications — which welcome foreign-owned businesses — goes into the Chamber’s 501(c)(6). Click below to see one such application:




Again, the information above documents the fact that foreign donations go directly to the Chamber without any intermediary, for instance, through an “AmCham” or another Chamber affiliate organization. The same Chamber account funded by these foreign corporation is running a $75 million attack campaign. In fact, a Chamber spokesperson acknowledged the foreign funds go into the Chamber’s general account. Any responsible reporter should have to note these direct donations given to the Chamber, which the Chamber has refused to discuss. Or, reporters should contact us directly if there is any confusion about our report.

Why Big Business is Spending so Much Money on the 2010 Elections

by Reverend Manny on October 13, 2010

I love the social network debates. My favorite topic recently has been Big Business‘ attempt to take over our government in this years $4 billion election.  As such, their favorite political party, the Republicans, have really ratcheted up the rhetoric. And Big Business has been sure to reward them.

Big Money in our elections is a bfd (Big Fucking Deal). To quote Citigroup, the only thing that stand in the way of a “new economic nobility” and a “plutocracy” is “one person, one vote.”

Besides sponsoring candidates and think tanks, besides giving money to violence-baiting sycophants, the most conservative billionaires (from around the world) also sponsor convenient misconceptions of history. Here’s a wonderful list, for example, from Perrspectives on 10 Republican lies about the Bush tax cuts.

• Lie #1: Democrats Plan Across the Board Tax Hikes on January 1st
• Lie #2: Democrats Want a $3.8 Trillion Tax Increase
• Lie #3: Tax Cuts Pay for Themselves
• Lie #4: The Bush Tax Cuts Didn’t Add to the Deficit
• Lie #5: Expiring High Income Tax Cuts Will Hurt Small Business
• Lie #6: The Estate Tax Devastates Small Businesses and Family Farms
• Lie #7: The Bush Tax Cuts Helped All Americans
• Lie #8. Extending Bush Tax Cuts for the Wealthy is the Best Way to Stimulate the Economy
• Lie #9. Bush Tax Cuts Produced 52 Straight Months of Job Growth
• Lie #10: The Rich Pay Too Much in Taxes Already

It would be easy to point to the high unemployment rate and slowed GDP for elitist favoritism of the Republican and Right Wing political platforms. But that’s not it. In fact, quite a few assholes on Wall Street are very excited about the high unemployment rate as it allows them to cut employee wages. As for our GDP, we are a 70% consumer economy, with quite too much of the rest coming from the financial and real estate sector (both of which tanked late in the Bush Administration). When our credit and our shopping-addiction and our speculative markets dried up, so did the retarding, uneconomic economies. When you consider how little innovation and production is actually done in our country, you should actually be stunned that our GDP is growing at all.

Big Business is doing VERY WELL right now. Don’t be fooled. JP Morgan for example, reported $4.4 billion third quarter profit. In fact, pay on wall street will be the highest ever FOR THE SECOND STRAIGHT YEAR AT $144 billion. Furthermore, this record growth even outpaces the finance sectors growth in revenue.

Big Business is spending billions of dollars on this election specifically because they are making so much money. They’ve managed to slow down the federal executive branch by having their Republican henchmen slow down both the legislative and approval process. But the line can’t hold forever. Sponsoring the Tea Party, FreedomWorks, Americans for Prosperity, the Chamber of Commerce, Citizens for a Sound Economy, the New York Post, the Washington Times, Fox News, Fox Business News, the Pittsburgh Tribune… these things cost money. And now they need the government to go back into the hands of the Republicans, who will allow them to withdraw their money from their investments free of any capital gains taxes.

Capital Gains Taxes are extremely important for a shared wealth pool (i.e. a tax system). Some rich people do little for their riches and simply collect the profits from previous investments. Since no portion of this is returned through payroll or income taxes, the Capital Gains Tax allows the government to tax a richer every time he/she cashes out of a major investment (thus giving the tax-payer some money back for his investment in the roads, the internet, the satelites, the law, the justice system, the plumbing, the subsidies, the education system and the security).
Rich useless folks, who basically just sit around a)collecting unearned money and b)figuring out how to collect more un-earned money, really loved it when the Neo-Conservatives slashed the Capital Gains Tax. They absolutely hated the fact that Obama re-introduced such taxes on our country’s wealthiest elite, despite the fact that the American Populace, as a whole, was paying it’s lowest tax rate since the 1950′s.

So the billionaires pay their Republican henchmen to make things up, like Obama will take your guns–which isn’t true. Heck they’ll even spend on the most corporatist Democrats out of desperate greed more than anything.

But there is only one true issue for these conservative elites–money. Power is a way to Money. Money is a way to Power. The Tao of Koch?

Fuck Feudalism,
–Reverend Manny (of the Human Village)

Earthquake Rattles North Texas

(DUDE! Earthquakes in Texas!--jef)


By Alice Wolke | Published : Wednesday, 13 Oct 2010

NORMAN, Okla. - Don't blame the gas wells this time -- the real thing struck in Oklahoma this morning and people all over North Texas felt it.

A 4.5-magnitude quake struck about 10 miles east of Norman, Okla., at 9:06 a.m., according to the U.S. Geological Survey.

That's about 170 miles from Dallas.

Two people in the Norman area suffered minor injuries, the Associated Press reported.

People in Denton, north Fort Worth, Collin County, and Dallas reported feeling the tremor.

In the other direction, the quake was felt as far as Kansas City.

There's no word on any damage.

More than a dozen small earthquakes blamed on gas well drilling in the Barnett Shale shook towns like Cleburne, Euless and Grand Prairie in 2008 and 2009.

The largest of those quakes measured magnitude 3.3.

How Obama can save the fragile economy from going back into a tailspin

Avoid the Double Dip
BY NOURIEL ROUBINI, MICHAEL MORAN | NOVEMBER 2010

Roughly three years since the onset of the financial crisis, the U.S. economy increasingly looks vulnerable to falling back into recession. The United States is flirting with "stall speed," an anemic rate of growth that, if it persists, can lead to collapses in spending, consumer confidence, credit, and other crucial engines of growth. Call it a "double dip" or the Great Recession, Round II: Whatever the term, we're talking about a negative feedback loop that would be devilishly hard to break.

If Barack Obama wants a realistic shot at a second term, he'll need to act quickly and decisively to prevent this scenario.

Double-digit unemployment is the root of the problem. Without job creation there's a lack of consumer spending, which represents 40 percent of domestic GDP. To date, the U.S. government has responded creatively and massively to the near collapse of the financial system, using a litany of measures, from the bank bailout to stimulus spending to low interest rates. Together, these policies prevented a reprise of the Great Depression. But they also created fiscal and political dilemmas that limit the usefulness of traditional monetary and fiscal tools that policymakers can turn to in a pinch.

With interest rates near zero percent already, the Federal Reserve has few bullets left in its holster to boost growth or fend off another slump. This lack of available good options was patently on display in August when Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke spoke with a tinge of resignation about new "quantitative easing" interventions in the mortgage and bond markets -- a highly technical suggestion that, until the recent crisis, amounted to heresy among Fed policymakers. It certainly hasn't helped that the U.S. federal deficit has reached heights that make additional stimulus spending, of the kind that helped kindle the mini-recovery of early 2010, politically impossible.

Yet all is not lost. Obama will face an increasingly partisan and divided Washington over the next two years, but he can take steps to reduce the odds that this dark double-dip scenario comes to pass. This will, of course, require deft politics. To that end, the administration should focus on policies that create a revenue-neutral fiscal stimulus -- one that targets both labor demand and consumption.

Start with the one thing that everyone loves to hate: taxes. Forget the political hot potato over the size and shape of the cuts -- there's an easy way to do this. For the next two years, Obama should reduce payroll taxes for both employers and employees. The reduction for employers will lower labor costs and allow the hiring of more workers; for employees, increased take-home pay will get people spending again. It's not just about increasing foot traffic in the mall; households need to pay down the burden of credit cards, second mortgages, and other legacies of the years of easy credit.

But this tax cut can't bust the budget. How can it be funded? By allowing George W. Bush's tax cuts for people making more than $250,000 to expire while keeping in place those for middle- and low-income earners -- the vast majority of Americans. And whatever trickle-down Republicans in Congress say, Obama will have to remain firm on this.

After two years, when U.S. growth is hopefully more robust and the pace of private-sector hiring has picked up steam, Obama can afford to phase out the payroll tax cuts. But the income-tax increases for the rich? They'll need to stick around. To woo key middle-of-the-road Democrats and moderate Republicans and to maximize the incentives for private-sector hiring, the president should make sharper reductions to payroll taxes paid by employers than to those paid by employees. This makes mincemeat of the argument that high-income individuals invariably resort to -- that higher income taxes will hurt small businesses and curtail hiring. By incentivizing both consumer spending and hiring, this plan goes far beyond the modest tax credits for business investment proposed in September.

As for the employee payroll tax cuts, because low-income workers generally consume more of their salaries when given extra money, the payroll tax cut should be designed to provide a larger percentage break to those on the low end of the income scale. This has another ancillary benefit: "Progressive" Democrats will find this tax cut an easier sell.

But the mixture of employer and employee payroll tax cuts, the latter benefiting the majority of Americans, represents only the beginning of what might be done with a more creative approach to tax policy. After all, everyone agrees that something needs to be done: The president's fiercest political rivals go on the record daily declaring an economic state of emergency.

It's high time to hold U.S. financial institutions to account. The very companies that benefited from the billions of dollars of taxpayer stimulus are currently building up huge cash reserves -- in effect, overinvesting in capital at the expense of jobs. Taxing this capital would reduce the relative cost of labor and get companies hiring again.

Both for policy and political reasons, Obama should emphasize that these changes would be temporary. Absent a new stimulus package -- which appears highly unlikely at this point -- these cuts are the best way to avert another economic disaster. They direct billions of dollars back to the American households that are most likely to spend them and those businesses most likely to hire new employees.

Only a tiny percentage of Americans will end up paying more: the highest-income earners, who have already benefited greatly from the service the government (read: taxpayers) rendered to their brokerage firms and investment banks in 2008. Republicans may rail against increasing taxes on any American, but the complaints of the wealthy, in today's economic climate, will have little credibility among middle-class voters. In exchange for this increase, Obama can fashion a large tax break for employers and employees that jump-starts consumption, encourages hiring, and reduces the risk of a double dip -- all without busting the budget.

Wall Street Pay: A Record $144 Billion

Financial Overhaul Has Affected Structure but Not Level; Revenue-to-Compensation Ratio Stays Flat
By LIZ RAPPAPORT, AARON LUCCHETTI and STEPHEN GROCER - OCTOBER 11, 2010

Pay on Wall Street is on pace to break a record high for a second consecutive year, according to a study conducted by The Wall Street Journal.

Compensation on Wall Street is on pace to break a record high for a second consecutive year, as more than three dozen top banks and securities firms will pay $144 billion in salary and benefits. Elizabeth Rappaport, Bob O'Brien and Neal Lipschutz discuss. Also, Guggenheim Partners's Scott Minerd discusses why he thinks that despite record highs, gold can be expected to rise even higher.

About three dozen of the top publicly held securities and investment-services firms—which include banks, investment banks, hedge funds, money-management firms and securities exchanges—are set to pay $144 billion in compensation and benefits this year, a 4% increase from the $139 billion paid out in 2009, according to the survey. Compensation was expected to rise at 26 of the 35 firms.

The data showed that revenue was expected to rise at 29 of the 35 firms surveyed, but at a slower pace than pay. Wall Street revenue is expected to rise 3%, to $448 billion from $433 billion, despite a slowdown in some high-profile activities like stock and bond trading.

Compensation at Wall Street Firms

Data on top firms by market cap:

View Interactive

Listen: Lucchetti speaks about Wall Street compensation

Overall, Wall Street is expected to pay 32.1% of its revenue to employees, the same as last year, but below the 36% in 2007. Profits, which were depressed by losses in the past two years, have bounced back from the 2008 crisis. But the estimated 2010 profit of $61.3 billion for the firms surveyed still falls about 20% short from the record $82 billion in 2006. Over that same period, compensation across the firms in the survey increased 23%.

"Until focus of these institutions changes from revenue generation to long-term shareholder value, we will see these outrageous pay packages and compensation levels," said Charles Elson, director of the Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance.

Firms surveyed said it is too early to comment on 2010 compensation levels. Many firms say that if they don't adequately compensate employees, they risk losing top talent.

The pay numbers show that firms, benefiting from low interest rates and strong international markets, continue to base their pay on economic and market conditions rather than the level of pressure coming from regulators in Washington and overseas.

Still, politicians and market watchdogs have been successful in influencing the structure of pay, if not its levels. They have pushed for more compensation in stock and other deferred instruments. Firms have found other ways to limit the risks employees take for short-term gains, which was mandatory for firms that accepted government funds during the financial crisis.

Many large Wall Street firms have come out from under the Treasury Department's rules about pay. But with the passage of financial-overhaul legislation that aims to change pay policies, many public firms are still awaiting specific rules. Those rules, as required by the Dodd-Frank financial regulatory bill, won't be written for several months.

"The current wave of regulation is helping keep comp relatively flat," said Steven Eckhaus, a partner at law firm Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP.

There are some signs that pay might slow down in coming quarters. Tough new rules about how much capital banks must hold could force Wall Street to cut back on compensation in an effort to preserve returns on equity for shareholders, analysts say. Since Wall Street firms pay out up to half of their revenue in compensation, cutting back on that large cost can meaningfully increase profits left for shareholders.

"I see a flat outlook over the next couple of years" on pay, said Roman Regelman, a partner in the financial-services practice at consulting firm Booz & Co. More regulations in high-profit businesses like derivatives will continue to hamper traders' pay, he said.

Though higher revenue often means higher compensation, that isn't always the case. At Citigroup Inc., which remains about 12%-owned by the government, analysts projected revenue would increase this year by about 4%. But pay for the banking giant is likely to be down about 8%, according to projections in the Journal survey.

The opposite is true at Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Bank of America Corp., where analysts project revenue will be down, but compensation will be up, according to the survey.

Goldman's revenue is expected to decline by 13.5% this year to $39.1 billion from $45.2 billion in 2009. Compensation remains projected higher than last year, up 3.7% to $16.8 billion, from $16.2 billion in 2009, according to the Journal survey. Through the first half of 2010, Goldman Sachs set aside 43% of its revenue for compensation. Goldman's ultimate payouts could change drastically. In 2009, for example, it withheld revenue for compensation in the fourth quarter, dropping the overall ratio of revenue to compensation.

This year, employees have jumped to more lucrative opportunities when firms don't pay. Senior staff at Goldman Sachs and Credit Suisse Group in London, for example, defected last year when the firms cut their pay in response to a U.K. tax on bonus payments.

Where revenue falls short, analysts and experts expect that Wall Street will lay off employees in order to keep bonus pools high. U.K.-based Barclays Capital and Credit Suisse have cut some staff, while Morgan Stanley has a hiring freeze in place.

As proprietary-trading businesses were closed to adhere to new regulations, some traders have abandoned Wall Street to join private-equity firms and hedge funds.

Such nonbank firms like Blackstone Group LP, Och-Ziff Management Group LLC and Fortress Investment Group LLC aren't as scrutinized in Washington. All three firms' revenue and compensation are projected to increase.

At Blackstone, revenue is projected to be up 50% to $2.7 billion, from $1.8 billion in 2009. The Journal survey estimates that compensation will climb 12% in the year. At Fortress, which has closed two new funds this year, compensation is projected to climb by 29% to $656 million, from $505 million last year. Revenue is projected to rise 16.6%, to $680.8 million from $584 million in 2009, analysts say.

Acquisitions also have boosted revenue and compensation. Morgan Stanley, for example, acquired a 51% stake in Citigroup's brokerage unit, which affected 2010 revenue and compensation more than it did in a weak 2009. While Morgan Stanley's compensation is expected to be up slightly because of higher revenue, its overall ratio of compensation is expected to drop to 49% of revenue from 62% in 2009.

James Gorman, Morgan Stanley's chief executive, told shareholders earlier this year that 2009's compensation was at a peak when compared with revenue. And he seemed sensitive to shareholder concerns. "We're extremely conscious of the comp-to-revenue ratio," he said at the Feb. 2 conference. "There is nobody on my management team who will ever see again the kind of comp-to-revenue ratio as we had last year."

***

Oh, and JP Morgan Chase profits top forecasts, as well...just warms my heart!

Gore Vidal: America is the crookedest place on earth

Says Republicans 'are the small-town enemies of everybody'
By Ron Brynaert - Tuesday, October 12th, 2010

Acclaimed novelist Gore Vidal was no friend of the Bush administration. After President George W. Bush gave his first inaugural address, Vidal told Democracy Now's Amy Goodman that it was "the most un-American speech I’ve ever heard a chief executive give to the United States." He also claimed in 2008 that 9/11 was "a coup d’etat" to overthrow the government, allowing the Bush administration "[to] make legal each and every breach of the constitution that [they] had in mind."

On the election of President Obama, Vidal told The Independent that he was initially optimistic, but after witnessing the administration at work he's relegated himself to despair. “[He's] incompetent. He will be defeated for re-election. It’s a pity because he’s the first intellectual president we’ve had in many years, but he can’t hack it. He’s not up to it. He’s overwhelmed.”

Time hasn't mellowed Vidal any.

The New Statesman's Daniel Trilling writes, "Melvyn Bragg has interviewed the American author Gore Vidal many times over the years - including for three separate South Bank Show films. For his guest-edit of this week's New Statesman, Bragg called Vidal at his home in Los Angeles, where Vidal claimed to be working on perfecting 'the telephone essay.'"

A year ago, Vidal said that his homeland was "rotting away."

The UK Sunday Times spoke to Vidal, during a rare 2009 trip to England.

Today religious mania has infected the political bloodstream and America has become corrosively isolationist, he says. “Ask an American what they know about Sweden and they’d say ‘They live well but they’re all alcoholics’. In fact a Scandinavian system could have benefited us many times over.” Instead, America has “no intellectual class” and is “rotting away at a funereal pace. We’ll have a military dictatorship fairly soon, on the basis that nobody else can hold everything together. Obama would have been better off focusing on educating the American people. His problem is being over-educated. He doesn’t realise how dim-witted and ignorant his audience is. Benjamin Franklin said that the system would fail because of the corruption of the people and that happened under Bush.”

Now Vidal warns the world, "Anybody who tries to hang on to America's coat-tails is going to find himself up to his eyeballs in, well, deceit and corruption. This is the crookedest place on earth - and I never thought I would go that far, having been to many other countries at least south of our borders."

I should not in the least be surprised if there were a kind of dictatorship at the end of the road, which seems to be coming more and more quickly as we lose more and more wars.

But Republicans still get the worst of it. Vidal calls them "the small-town enemies of everybody."

They just dislike everyone. They couldn't come out and say: "We don't want a black president" - we've finally got past that roadblock. So what they did was set out to slaughter the opposition party, the Democrats.

"Vidal's contention is that Obama's opponents, motivated by racism, have set out to discredit him," Trilling writes.

Repetition. They keep saying he's really a terrorist and they even deny he's black. He's obviously brown in some way - a vicious way - because we know what they are like; those are terrorists.

Jesse Ventura: US should abolish inherently corrupt political parties

By David Edwards and Ron Brynaert
Wednesday, October 13th, 2010

A dozen years after shocking the nation with an upset win as an Independent candidate in the 1998 Minnesota gubernatorial election, former wrestler Jesse Ventura doesn't support third parties anymore.

"Win if you can, lose if you must, but ALWAYS cheat," Jesse "The Body" Ventura infamously said in his days as a wrestling villain, but Tuesday night he blasted such Machiavellian philosophies.

Ventura told ABC's George Stephanopoulos that he wouldn't vote for his former employer Linda McMahon in her bid to become Senator even if he could "[b]ecause i don't vote for Democrats or Republicans. If she ran as an independent, she could possibly get my endorsement. But I refuse."

Ventura added, "I no longer support the third party movement."

"Why not?" the ABC interviewer asked.

Ventura elaborated, "I believe the system is so corrupt, the two parties have corrupted it so bad, that any thirty party, in which to be successful, will likewise have to corrupt itself. If you already have a two-headed monster, why would you need three?"

The answer is "to abolish parties," Ventura added. "Do not put a name of a party below the person's name on the ballot. It's too easy to say, I'm a Republican. And you walk in: Republican, Republican, Republican. You're voting the party, not the person. And that's the way it's all set up."

Ventura also appeared on CNN Tuesday night, telling Larry King (video at this link) why he enjoys hosting his Conspiracy Theory show, "I love to attack our government."

Two weeks ago, USA Today spoke to Ventura about why he thought "there can't be any change."

"Notice I lump them together," he says. "I don't distinguish between the two because it's very much like pro wrestling. You (give) interviews on TV like you hate each other, to draw crowds and attention and make money. But behind closed doors, you'll go out to dinner with each other. Well, the Democrats and Republicans are the same way. They're not adversaries; they just make believe they are to the American public."

In fact, Ventura, who ran as an independent and a member of the Reform Party, says he's no longer even into that. "I do not support the third party movement anymore," he says. "I now advocate the abolishment of all political parties. We've allowed the parties to take over the government."

An article for The Hill published Wednesday notes, "A majority of likely voters think a viable third party would be good for American politics, according to a new poll of likely voters in 10 key open House districts."

Fifty-four percent of respondents in The Hill 2010 Midterm Election Poll said they’d like an alternative to the Democrats and Republicans.

That number rose to 67 percent for self-identified independents. But even a plurality in the established parties — 49 percent of Democrats and 46 percent of Republicans — said they’d like another choice.

“That’s probably the strongest number I’ve seen in a poll of people in America saying that they're interested in a third party,” said pollster Mark Penn.

ABC host: Ventura's most 'out there' theory is US was warned about 9/11

At his ABC News blog, Stephanopoulos notes, "Ventura was on to tout the second season of his show Conspiracy Theory, and he weighed in with some of his theories."

Most out there? That the U.S. government was in on the 9-11 plot. 

“Most people attack me because I question 9/11 now and…when people attack me I always go ‘What have you studied about it other than what the government has told you and sound bite news has told you,’” he said.

“My theory is that we certainly knew it was going to happen and we did nothing to stop it,” Ventura said.

"How can you say that?" the ABC host then asked, even though the former Minnesota governor hadn't directly accused the Bush administration of complicity, but Ventura's response was left out of his blog account.

Easy. Take a look at evidence. The NSA was predicting it as early as may. Condoleezza Rice stood there in August and said, "How did we know they were going to hijack planes and run them into buildings?" The August memo said, "Hijack planes and run them into buildings."

The August of 2001 memo (PDF link), which wasn't declassified until 2004, does warn about Qaeda threats to hijack planes.

Before it was declassified, the New York Times reported, "President Bush was told more than a month before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, that supporters of Osama bin Laden planned an attack within the United States with explosives and wanted to hijack airplanes, a government official said Friday."

The disclosure appears to contradict the White House's repeated assertions that the briefing the president received about the Qaeda threat was ''historical'' in nature and that the White House had little reason to suspect a Qaeda attack within American borders. 

Members of the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks have asked the White House to make the Aug. 6 briefing memorandum public. The A.P. account of it was attributed to ''several people who have seen the memo.'' The White House has said that nothing in it pointed specifically to the kind of attacks that actually took place a month later. 

The Congressional report last year, citing efforts by Al Qaeda operatives beginning in 1997 to attack American soil, said that operatives appeared to have a support structure in the United States and that intelligence officials had ''uncorroborated information'' that Mr. bin Laden ''wanted to hijack airplanes'' to gain the release of imprisoned extremists. It also said that intelligence officials received information in May 2001, three months earlier, that indicated ''a group of bin Laden supporters was planning attacks in the United States with explosives.''

However, another document did indeed include such a warning.

In its interactive 9/11 "terror clues" graphic, CBS News noted, "US intelligence learns that a 'group of unidentified Arabs planned to fly an explosive-laden plane from a foreign country into the World Trade Center,' according to a report released by congressional investigators Sept. 18, 2002. The information was passed on to the Federal Aviation Administration and FBI, which took little action on it. The group may now be linked to bin Laden, the report says."

This video is from ABC's Good Morning America, broadcast Oct. 13, 2010.

Outside Cash Leaves Scorched Earth in US Campaign

by Stephen Collinson - Tuesday, October 12, 2010 by Agence France-Presse

WASHINGTON — Nerve jarring music races to a crescendo, shadowy pictures flash across the screen, and in doom-laden tones, a narrator warns: "Obama -- he promised change... now he's desperate, on the attack."

This is not the inspirational candidate who moved thousands to tears at his Chicago victory party, nor the one who tilted at history with the most impressive legislative record of any Democratic president for decades.

This is President Barack Obama through the eyes of Americans for Prosperity, a group lambasted by Democrats since a Supreme Court decision opened a spigot of outside spending on next month's mid-term elections.

Expensive, bombastic political ads are hardly new to American politics -- both sides of the political aisle fling half truths and explosive claims across television screens every election season.

But Democrats, fearing heavy losses in Congress due to the sluggish economic rebound and high unemployment, are crying foul this year, after the Court rulings dismantled a raft of restrictions on corporate spending.

Independent groups -- not openly linked to the political parties -- can now suck up unlimited corporate cash, and spill it on elections, without revealing the source of their largesse.

Conservative groups currently dominate the spending binge -- profiting from Republican grass roots anger over the Obama administration ahead of November 2 polls in which Democrats fear heavy losses.

The Americans For Prosperity ad is, in fact, a riposte to Obama's own claims that no one knows who the group is or how it is financed.

"Who is he afraid of? Americans For Prosperity? People like you?" the hard-hitting ad run by the activist group says.

Research by the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks campaign spending, shows conservative independent groups have splashed out $25.8 million on advertising since September 1, compared to $5.6 million by liberal groups.

Detractors argue that the benign names of some groups, like Americans for Prosperity, Americans for Job Security and Working America belie the nakedly partisan nature of their advertising.

"You know, they call themselves 'Americans for Apple Pie' or 'Moms for Motherhood' -- and then they use their voice to drown out yours," Obama quipped in September.

Under campaign finance laws, corporations or individuals are limited in how much they can give each candidate -- but since the Supreme Court ruling, there are no such curbs on how much a group can spend on ads under its own banner.

This Democrats say, is unfair and means big corporations can remain anonymous and swamp the voice of the average voter at the polls.

Republicans charge corporations as well as individuals have a right to free speech, and point to heavy labor union financing of Democratic campaigns.

In Nevada, Democratic Senate Majority leader Harry Reid is desperately trying to cling on to his seat, against Republican Sharron Angle, a favorite of the conservative Tea Party movement.

American Crossroads, a group for which former George W. Bush political guru Karl Rove raises money, has stepped in with a hard-hitting ad.

Shots of the Democratic veteran are juxtaposed with a lacerating script: "Bailouts, deficits, Obamacare... haven't you done enough?"

Though such ads steal headlines, David Damore, a professor of political science at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas said the group's work on the Republican ground game may actually have more impact than the air war.

"Rove's group is doing a lot of turnout -- there is a real Republican disadvantage (in that area) in the state right now," Damore said.

Some experts believe independent groups may be most effective in House races where electorates are smaller and a sudden cash boost can tilt the scales.

In Virginia, Democrat Rick Boucher is in danger of losing a seat he has held for years. He is known as a conservative Democrat but Americans for Job Security is shackling him to House speaker Nancy Pelosi, a hate figure for Republicans.

"Boucher has failed to protect our jobs -- now it is time Rick Boucher loses his," an ad says.

AJS describes itself on its website as an "independent, bi-partisan, pro-business issue advocacy organization" but does not disclose donors, saying its membership could be misinterpreted by politicians or the media.

In its counter attack, the White House has highlighted the reports that the US Chamber of Commerce, which leans Republican, has used funds from foreign funds for electoral campaigning.

The Chamber denies the charges, but the White House is demanding proof.

Rove has also weighed in: "This is a desperate and I think disturbing trend by the president of the United States to tar his political adversaries with some kind of enemies list," he told Fox News Sunday.