The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is growing its bank account and jumping into grassroots lobbying game now since the Supreme Court opened the floodgates for corporations to spend unlimited money on elections. The Chamber spent more than $144 million on lobbying and grassroots organizing in 2009, far beyond the spending of individual labor unions or the Democratic or Republican national committees. The Chamber is expected to exceed that spending level in 2010. One of the factors causing the rapid increase in money pouring into the Chamber is the Supreme Court's ruling in the Citizens United case which handed corporations the free-speech right to spend as much as they want to elect or defeat candidates. The Court's ruling struck down a century of established case law upholding limits on corporate political spending. It also made business executives more comfortable using corporate funds for political purposes. Passing funds through trade groups instead of spending directly on elections has another benefit for corporations: Trade groups can legally avoid disclosing their donors' identities. The Chamber has developed a system where corporations give them money, and they in turn produces issue ads targeting individual candidates without revealing the names of the businesses who are funding the ads. This means that for all the increased influence corporations now have on elections, there is no equivalent transparency. The Chamber's system keeps secret which businesses are influencing a given election, and to what extent.

Depiction of Obama in RNC presentationA confidential Republican National Committee (RNC)
PowerPoint presentation about fundraising strategies discusses raising money for the 2010 election cycle by capitalizing on donors' fear of President Obama and promising to "save the country from trending toward socialism." One page of the presentation titled "The Evil Empire" depicts Obama as the Joker from Batman, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as Cruella DeVille, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid as Scooby Doo. Another page explains that major donors who engage in "calculated giving" are "ego-driven," react to "peer to peer pressure" and are motivated by "access," while smaller donors -- called "visceral donors" -- are "reactionary," motivated by "fear" and "extreme negative feelings toward existing Administration." The presentation, titled "Tools for Success," was prepared by Party finance staff and delivered by RNC Finance Director Rob Bickhart at a $2,500-a-head party retreat held in Boca Grande, Florida on February 18. The full 72-page document was provided to Politico.com by a Democrat who found a hard copy that was left behind in the hotel where the RNC hosted the event.

The conservative blogosphere is busy charging that the United States Missile Defense Agency's (MDA) new logo looks suspicious ... like a combination of the Muslim crescent moon and Barack Obama's campaign logo. Some even say they detect a similarity to the logo of Iran's Space Agency. Right wing blogger Frank Gaffney, a former senior official at the Pentagon during the Reagan administration, says something "nefarious is afoot" about the new logo. These latest Obama conspiracy-theorists may be disappointed, though, because it turns out that the agency's "new" logo isn't all that new. MDA spokesman Rick Lehner says it was developed three years ago, during the George W. Bush administration, and a full year before the 2008 presidential campaign. Lehner said the logo was chosen because it is cheaper, since it consists of three colors, as opposed to the five colors contained in the agency's former official logo.

By writing the health care reform bill as a budget bill, Senate Democrats could advance the measure using a procedure called "reconciliation," which would avoid a Republican attempt to stall the measure by filibustering it. But Republicans are portraying use of reconciliation -- "Washington-speak" for seeking a simple majority vote -- as scandalously improper for a health reform bill. Senator Bill Frist (R- Tenessee) claimed use of reconciliation would be "unprecedented" and "historic." Scott Brown (R-Massachusetts) erroneously called reconciliation "the nuclear option." John Kyl (R-Arizona) complains that reconciliation "was never designed for a large, comprehensive piece of legislation such as health care," and Orrin Hatch (R- Utah) said "The use of expedited reconciliation process to push through more dramatic changes to a health care bill of such size, scope and magnitude is unprecedented." In reality, use of reconciliation to pass major health reform measures is the norm. Most health care reform measures passed over the last 30 years were passed using reconciliation. The bill that created COBRA, for example -- the law that allows people to keep their health insurance after they leave their jobs -- was passed through reconciliation. ("COBRA" stands for "Consolidated Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1985," the name of the bill in which it was passed.) Expansion of the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) was also achieved through reconciliation. The process was also used to add protections for nursing home patients, preventive care like cancer screenings, and a hospice benefit to Medicare. In fact, over the last 30 years, far more major health care financing measures have been passed using reconciliation than not.

House Representative Bob Marshall (R-Virginia), speaking at a press conference on February 18 to oppose funding for Planned Parenthood, said that disabled children are God's punishment for women who have aborted their first pregnancy. Marshall said,

"Looking at it from a cultural, historical perspective, this organization should be called 'Planned Barrenhood' because they have nothing to do with families, they have nothing to do with responsibility ... The number of children who are born subsequent to a first abortion with handicaps has increased dramatically. Why? Because when you abort the first born of any, nature takes its vengeance on the subsequent children. In the Old Testament, the first born of every being, animal and man, was dedicated to the Lord. There's a special punishment, Christians would suggest."

But the following week, Marshall disputed the accuracy of his statements, claiming they were taken out of context and that the complete opposite was true: "I don't believe that disabled kids are God's punishments, period, end of discussion. I have defended disabled kids." He also put out a press release insisting that he is a champion of disabled children, and saying he "regrets any misimpression my poorly chosen words may have created."