Corporations Legally Allowed To Purchase The 2012 Election; Citizens United

Groups Shield Political Gifts of Businesses

American Electric Power, one of the country’s largest utilities, gave $1 million last November to the Founding Fund, a new tax-exempt group that intends to raise most of its money from corporations and push for limited government.

The giant insurer Aetna directed more than $3 million last year to the American Action Network, a Republican-leaning nonprofit organization that has spent millions of dollars attacking lawmakers who voted for President Obama’s health care bill — even as Aetna’s president publicly voiced support for the legislation.

Other corporations, including Prudential Financial, Dow Chemical and the drugmaker Merck, have poured millions of dollars more into the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a tax-exempt trade group that has pledged to spend at least $50 million on political advertising this election cycle.

Two years after the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision opened the door for corporate spending on elections, relatively little money has flowed from company treasuries into “super PACs,” which can accept unlimited contributions but must also disclose donors. Instead, there is growing evidence that large corporations are trying to influence campaigns by donating money to tax-exempt organizations that can spend millions of dollars without being subject to the disclosure requirements that apply to candidates, parties and PACs.

The secrecy shrouding these groups makes a full accounting of corporate influence on the electoral process impossible. But glimpses of their donors emerged in a New York Times review of corporate governance reports, tax returns of nonprofit organizations and regulatory filings by insurers and labor unions.

The review found that corporate donations — many of them previously unreported — went to groups large and small, dedicated to shaping public policy on the state and national levels. From a redistricting fight in Minnesota to the sprawling battleground of the 2012 presidential and Congressional elections, corporations are opening their wallets and altering the political world.

Some of the biggest recipients of corporate money are organized under Section 501(c)(4) of the tax code, the federal designation for “social welfare” groups dedicated to advancing broad community interests. Because they are not technically political organizations, they do not have to register with or disclose their donors to the Federal Election Commission, potentially shielding corporate contributors from shareholders or others unhappy with their political positions.

“Companies want to be able to quietly push for their political agendas without being held accountable for it by their customers,” said Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which has filed complaints against issue groups. “I think the 501(c)(4)’s are likely to outweigh super PAC spending, because so many donors want to remain anonymous.”

Because social welfare groups are prohibited from devoting themselves primarily to political activity, many spend the bulk of their money on issue advertisements that purport to be educational, not political, in nature. In May, for example, Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies, a group co-founded by the Republican strategist Karl Rove, began a $25 million advertising campaign, carefully shaped with focus groups of undecided voters, that attacks Mr. Obama for increasing the federal deficit and urges him to cut spending.

The Internal Revenue Service has no clear test for determining what constitutes excessive political activity by a social welfare group. And tax-exempt groups are permitted to begin raising and spending money even before the I.R.S. formally recognizes them. Two years after helping Republicans win control of the House with millions of dollars in issue advertising, Crossroads GPS’s application for tax-exempt status is still pending.

During the 2010 midterm elections, tax-exempt groups outspent super PACs by a 3-to-2 margin, according to a recent study by the Center for Responsive Politics and the Center for Public Integrity, with most of that money devoted to attacking Democrats or defending Republicans. And such groups have accounted for two-thirds of the political advertising bought by the biggest outside spenders so far in the 2012 election cycle, according to Kantar Media’s Campaign Media Analysis Group, with close to $100 million in issue ads.

The growing role of issue groups has prompted a rash of complaints and lawsuits from watchdog organizations accusing groups like the American Action Network, Crossroads and the pro-Obama Priorities USA of operating as sham charities whose primary purpose is not the promotion of social welfare, but winning elections. Efforts in Congress to force more disclosure for politically active nonprofit organizations have been repeatedly stymied by Republicans, who have described the push as an assault on free speech.

“These groups are being used as a conduit to hide from voters the identity of people and corporations who are bankrolling these television ads, which are designed to influence the outcome of elections,” said Representative Chris Van Hollen, Democrat of Maryland.

But Jonathan Collegio, a spokesman for Crossroads, said, “Individuals and organizations have a First Amendment right to promote their beliefs through advertising, be that advertising against the Iraq war, against climate change or, in the case of Crossroads, advocating for free markets and limited government.”

Labor unions — themselves among the beneficiaries of Citizens United — have also donated millions of dollars to national super PACs and state-level nonprofit groups involved in battles over government spending, collective bargaining and health care.

Donations from corporations and unions alike must be disclosed if they go to expressly political groups like super PACs.

In April, for example, the air traffic controllers’ union contributed $1 million to a pro-Obama super PAC. But other contributions are harder to trace. Last year, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees gave $100,000 to Advancing Wisconsin, a tax-exempt group that supported labor’s fight with Republicans in that state; the donation was reported nowhere in Wisconsin, but it emerged in an annual financial report that unions must file with the federal Department of Labor.

Among the largest beneficiaries of corporate donations in recent years have been trade organizations like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which largely backs Republican candidates. As a nonprofit “business league” under the tax code, the chamber does not have to disclose its supporters, who helped finance its $33 million in political ads in the 2010 midterm elections.

But voluntary disclosures by corporations — usually at the prodding of shareholder advocacy groups — shed some light on the use of trade groups for lobbying or as pass-throughs for political spending. A search of voluntary disclosures, some collected by the Center for Political Accountability, which advocates for transparency in corporate political spending, found more than $6 million in chamber donations by 10 companies last year.

Two of the largest came from Prudential Financial and Dow Chemical, which each gave $1.6 million, while Chevron, MetLife and Merck each gave at least $500,000. Some of the donations were directed to the chamber’s Institute for Legal Reform, which lobbies for limits on liability suits.

Some contributions are disclosed by accident. Aetna’s check to the American Action Network, along with a $4.5 million contribution last year to the chamber, was mistakenly included in a filing with insurance regulators. The disclosure was first reported by SNL Financial, a trade publication. Even where companies pledge voluntary disclosure of political contributions, they often make an exception for donations to tax-exempt groups.

In 2007, Aetna signed an agreement with the Mercy Investment Program, a shareholders group, to disclose trade associations to which it made large contributions. On regulatory filings, the company initially described its $3 million contribution to the Chamber of Commerce as a lobbying expense, but the company now says it was intended to finance “educational activities.”

An Aetna spokesman would not say whether the chamber donation would appear on the company’s 2011 voluntary disclosure. Sister Valerie Heinonen, the director of shareholder advocacy for Mercy Investment Services, said that a failure to do so would violate the company’s pledge.

Beyond the contributions to large, established nonprofits like the chamber and American Action Network, corporate money is also quietly shaping the political discourse through more obscure groups, none of which are required to disclose their donors.

In Minnesota last year, Express Scripts, a major drug benefit manager, gave $10,000 to a Republican-linked group, Minnesotans for a Fair Redistricting, involved in a partisan fight over redrawing legislative boundaries.

Express Scripts made the donation, previously unreported, because the “electoral maps in Minnesota were in doubt and we supported efforts to bring certainty to Minnesota voters,” said Brian Henry, a spokesman for the company, which is based in St. Louis. He added that the firm has a facility in Bloomington, Minn.

The reasons behind American Electric Power’s $1 million contribution to the little-known Founding Fund are less clear. The company characterized it as “lobbying” in a corporate governance disclosure last year, but the fund says it does no lobbying. The fund, whose address is a mail drop in Alexandria, Va., would not make any of its directors available for an interview.

The fund’s treasurer, Frank Sadler, is a lobbyist who previously worked for Koch Industries advising nonprofit groups that support free market causes, although he said the Kochs, major Republican donors, were not involved in the group.

In its public filings, the fund said it expected to raise about $10 million this election cycle, primarily from corporations, and use it to promote free markets and “the narrowing of the scope and reach of the federal government.”

A spokesman for American Electric Power, Pat D. Hemlepp, said the company supports organizations “with positions on issues that align with AEP’s positions” and strives to be transparent on political giving. “We also respect the positions of others, including some of the organizations that receive funding from AEP, to not publicly disclose funding or activities.

That’s their right under the law.”


Sources: Aljazeera, NY Times, TPM, Youtube

Private Prison Corporations Offering State Officials CA$H To Manage State Prisons

Private Prison Corporation Offers Cash In Exchange For State Prisons

As state governments wrestle with massive budget shortfalls, a Wall Street giant is offering a solution: cash in exchange for state property. Prisons, to be exact.

Corrections Corporation of America, the nation's largest operator of for-profit prisons, has sent letters recently to 48 states offering to buy up their prisons as a remedy for "challenging corrections budgets." In exchange, the company is asking for a 20-year management contract, plus an assurance that the prison would remain at least 90 percent full, according to a copy of the letter obtained by The Huffington Post.

The move reflects a significant shift in strategy for the private prison industry, which until now has expanded by building prisons of its own or managing state-controlled prisons. It also represents an unprecedented bid for more control of state prison systems.

Corrections Corporation has been a swiftly growing business, with revenues expanding more than fivefold since the mid-1990s. The company capitalized on the expansion of state prison systems in the '80s and '90s at the height of the so-called 'war on drugs,' contracting with state governments to build or manage new prisons to house an influx of drug offenders. During the past 10 years, it has found new opportunity in the business of locking up undocumented immigrants, as the federal government has contracted with private companies in an aggressive immigrant-detention campaign.

And Corrections Corporation's offer of $250 million toward purchasing existing state prisons is yet another avenue for potential growth. The company has billed the "corrections investment initiative" as a convenient option for states in need of fresh revenue streams: The state benefits from a one-time infusion of cash, while the prison corporation wins a new long-term contract. In addition, supporters of prison privatization have argued that states can achieve cost savings through outsourcing, as prison corporations give fewer benefits to employees.

"We believe this comes at a timely and helpful juncture and hope you will share our belief in the benefits of the purchase-and-manage model," reads the letter from Harley Lappin, CCA's chief corrections officer, who was a former director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

Ohio sold off one of its largest prisons to Corrections Corporation last year as a way to plug holes in its budget, and government officials estimate that outsourcing the prison could save the state $3 million annually. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) proposed putting three state prisons on the block last year to generate one-time revenue, but he failed to persuade state lawmakers to endorse the plan.

Others have raised serious doubts about the wisdom of selling off and privatizing state prisons, which could give private corporations substantially more bargaining power in long-term contracts with states. Prison management contracts can be canceled or re-bid frequently, with the state still retaining ownership of the prison as an asset. But if a private company owns the prison, the state would have fewer options if it wanted to cut ties. Any alternatives for housing prisoners would likely cost more, such as building a new prison from scratch or finding another company to take in its inmates.

A series of studies has also cast doubt on the private prison industry's main selling point: efficiency. Research across numerous states has shown that the promised savings from private prisons can be illusory at best. Cost comparisons often fail to account for extra administrative expenses borne by the state, or differences in health care costs for sickly inmates who normally remain in state supervision.

What's more, many civil liberties advocates question why a profit motive should be tied to incarceration policies, raising concerns that cutting costs could have an adverse effect on public safety. In 1998, six prisoners, including five convicted murderers, escaped from a Corrections Corporation prison in Youngstown, Ohio, putting the company in the national spotlight amid findings of inept supervision by guards and poor training by prison officials.

"It's a real gamble for states to say, 'Gee, we're going to save a lot of money this way,'" said Zach Schiller, research director at Policy Matters Ohio, which did several studies analyzing Ohio's sale of a state prison to Corrections Corporation of America. "The idea that we should do this because we need money on a one-time basis seems like awfully short-term thinking. If we want to talk about what our needs are for the budget, and what our needs are for housing prisoners, let's look at those on a long-term basis and see what the best decisions are."

A spokesman for Corrections Corporation of America, Steve Owen, said the company's contracts with any government agency are completely transparent. He pointed out that in many states, including Ohio, governments require demonstrated cost savings of 5 percent or more to enter into a contract with a private operator.

"There has to be a cost savings, and they have to monitor that over time, so I think that speaks for itself," Owen said. "At the end of the day, if we can't provide the scope of services and the quality of services and do it at whatever the cost savings that are required, they're not going to continue to do business with us."

But estimated savings often come down to how those calculations are made, and outside researchers have questioned the numbers. In Arizona, for example, a 2010 report from the state's auditor general showed that it cost the state more to house prisoners in private facilities than public prisons after factoring in administrative costs and adjusting for the types of medical care provided to less healthy inmates who tended to be housed in public facilities. And in Florida, where lawmakers this week could decide whether to privatize more than two dozen state prisons, reports about private prisons from the state's legislative research office note, "cost savings estimates are subject to caveats and should be evaluated cautiously."

EXPANDING IN TIGHT TIMES

In recent years, Corrections Corporation of America has made it clear that it sees opportunity in the new era of state budget crises. During earnings calls with investors, company executives have pointed out that the Great Recession has brought renewed interest in privatization.

"We continue to believe we are very well-positioned in a market that, despite the economic pressures faced by our customers, has provided healthy financial performance," Corrections Corporation chief executive Damon Hininger said in the company earnings call last November. "Indeed, it is because of these pressures, which lead to severe capital constraints and the need to avoid increasing their pension liabilities, that we believe our value proposition to customers is getting stronger."

The letter sent last month to 48 states was billed on the example of Ohio, which last year sold a prison near the shore of Lake Erie to Corrections Corporation for $72.7 million.

"We want to build on that success and provide our existing or prospective government partners with access to the same opportunity," the letter said.

Those who follow the private corrections industry said the purchasing approach gives prison companies a new option for growth. Although U.S. prison populations have swelled to enormous proportions, growing more than sevenfold since the mid-1970s, growth has slowed and populations are expected to decline in many states.

"You've not seen inmate populations at the state level grow for the last two years," said Kevin Campbell, a senior research analyst who follows the corrections industry at Avondale Partners, an investment firm. "So if you as an industry are going to continue to grow, then you have to think, 'How do we take shares away from the public sector to the private sector?'"

The outright ownership of a prison generally makes state contracts more beneficial to a private operator such as Corrections Corporation of America, Campbell said. If a state owns a prison and contracts it out, the pricing tends to be more competitive, as numerous companies would be jockeying for the management job.

"That just keeps a lid on how profitable a management contract can be," Campbell said. "That's why their preference would be to own versus just straight-out manage a contract."

Yet critics point to inherent problems in such long-term contracts, particularly provisions that require a prison to be 90 percent full throughout the life of an agreement. In Ohio, for example, contractors are guaranteed payment at the 90 percent rate "regardless of the actual number of inmates at the institution at that time."

The mandate to keep prisons full raises questions about cost efficiency -- what if there aren't enough inmates? -- but it also presents a moral question about maintaining a constant supply of new prisoners.

"It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy," said Shakyra Diaz, policy director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio. "In order to have it at 90 percent, you need to be able to make criminals to fill it at 90 percent."

Corrections Corporation's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission clearly point out that business success is tied to a status quo in criminal justice policy.

"The demand for our facilities and services could be adversely affected by the relaxation of enforcement efforts, leniency in conviction or parole standards and sentencing practices or through the decriminalization of certain activities that are currently proscribed by our criminal laws," the company's most recent annual filing noted. "For instance, any changes with respect to drugs and controlled substances or illegal immigration could affect the number of persons arrested, convicted, and sentenced, thereby potentially reducing demand for correctional facilities to house them."

QUESTIONS ABOUT EFFICIENCY

Up until last year, the sale of a state prison to a private company was unprecedented. State and local governments have considered auctioning off all sorts of public property during the economic downturn, including even the state capitol building in Arizona.

Last year, the idea of selling prisons gained traction in both Louisiana and Ohio, as states became hungry for quick fixes to budget shortfalls. Gov. Jindal's plan in Louisiana came up short.

Legislators and state bureaucrats did not buy the idea of balancing a budget with one-time revenues from a prison sale. Louisiana State Treasurer John Kennedy compared the strategy to "a junkie selling the television set and radio to generate money for his next fix."

When Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R) took office last year, he proposed selling off five state prisons as part of a broader plan to privatize state government.

By the time Ohio received proposals last summer from private prison companies, only one offer was deemed worthy: the $72.7 million sale of the Lake Erie Correctional Facility. In a conference call with investors last fall, Hininger, the Corrections Corporation CEO, trumpeted the Ohio deal, noting, "Ohio has been a targeted state for CCA for several years."

Kasich's appointed chief for state prisons, Gary Mohr, previously served as a managing director at Corrections Corporation of America before assuming his government position last year. And Kasich's former chief of staff when he was a congressman, Donald Thibaut, now works as a lobbyist in Ohio for Corrections Corporation of America.

The state Department of Rehabilitation and Correction has pointed out that Mohr took the "extraordinary step of completely removing himself from this process," and did not have any part in examining the proposals for prison privatization last year.

State public policy groups have questioned how the sale of the Lake Erie prison shook out for taxpayers.

State officials have argued that selling and outsourcing the prison will generate $3 million in cost savings each year. But a report from Policy Matters Ohio calculated that selling the Lake Erie prison would actually cost more in the long term than if the state continued to own the property and pay off the construction bonds. That's because the state has to pay Corrections Corporation of America a $3.8 million annual ownership fee for housing state prisoners, in addition to the prisoner per-diem costs laid out in the contract.

According to the report, the prison sale would cost taxpayers $11 million more over the next 20 years than if the state would have continued to own the prison.

"A closer look shows that this deal has the potential to be a net loser for taxpayers right off the bat," the report notes.

Annette Chambers-Smith, the deputy director of administration at Ohio's Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, said the calculations in the group's report were "rudimentary." She said the calculation did not account for costs the state might have for capital improvements at the prison, and did not note the additional property taxes that will come from private ownership of the facility.

"In our case we were able to not only plug the hole in the budget, but then turn around and have property taxes," she said.

Just as cost concerns were raised in other states, groups in Ohio have questioned how much money is actually being saved by privatizing prison operations. Policy Matters Ohio said it found significant problems with the way the state calculated private prison "savings" in its report.

For example, to compare the costs at a privately run prison to a state prison, the state's department of corrections had to create a hypothetical state-run prison that would be the same size as a privately managed prison. The hypothetical example, however, contained central office and administrative staff costs that were not figured in for the private prison, making the state prison appear more costly, Policy Matters Ohio found.

In reality, the state is tasked with overseeing and administering private prisons in the correctional system -- creating an additional cost -- even if state employees aren't staffing the prisons.

Chambers-Smith, of the Ohio corrections department, acknowledged there had been inconsistencies with the state's cost calculations in the past. But beginning in 2010, she said the department has revised calculations to directly compare each area of service -- health care, utility costs, staffing.

"They don't get to cherry-pick their inmates," she said. "They have the exact same inmates there who were there when it was publicly operated."

At this point, it's unclear how many states will be interested in selling off prisons. Arizona, New Hampshire and Florida are considering privatizing the management of state prisons, but so far none have specifically broached the topic of a sale.

State corrections officials who were contacted in California, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Montana, Georgia, Texas, Illinois and New York all said they were not considering such prison sales at this time. In Illinois and New York, laws prohibit state inmates from being housed in private prisons, according to corrections officials.


View Larger Map

Sources: AOL, Huffington Post, PBS, Youtube, Google Maps

Starbucks Howard Schultz Urges 100 CEOs To Withhold Political Donations: Another 2012 GOP Backed Trap

100+ CEOs promise no campaign donations

You know who's really mad at Washington? Corporate America.

Led by Howard Schultz of Starbucks (SBUX, Fortune 500), more than 100 CEOs have signed a pledge to halt all political campaign contributions until lawmakers, as Schultz puts it, "stop the partisan gridlock in Washington, D.C."

Last week, he mounted a one-man bull rush against a political culture that has "chosen to put partisan and ideological purity over the well being of the people."

Schultz said he was going to stop writing checks, and he asked other CEOs to join him.

They have.

AOL's (AOL) Tim Armstrong, Frontier Communications' (FTR)Maggie Wilderotter, Zipcar's (ZIP) Scott Griffith, Whole Foods' (WFM) Walter Robb and Intuit's (INTU) Bill Campbell have all signed up.

The goal is to hit lawmakers right where it hurts: the pocketbook.

"All it seems people are interested in is re-election," Schultz told CNNMoney last week. "And that re-election -- the lifeblood of it is fundraising."

Schultz's own political donations, as chronicled by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, skew heavily Democratic. Out of a total $183,650 in donations, only $1,000 went to Republican candidates.

Schultz has said his breaking point was the contentious debate over raising the debt ceiling -- and the failure to reach a long-term solution to lower deficits.

"[Lawmakers] have stirred up fears about our economic prospects without doing anything to truly address those fears," Schultz wrote in a letter sent to his fellow CEOs.

He said politicians can still make it right by coming together and reaching a compromise deal that would lift the cloud of uncertainty that has hamstrung the economy.

"It means reaching a deal on debt, revenue, and spending long before the deadline arrives this fall," the letter said. "It means considering all options, from entitlement programs to taxes."

The amount of money spent to influence elections has been steadily climbing.

During the 2008 election cycle, more than $5.2 billion was spent by candidates, political parties and interest groups, according to data compiled by the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics

In 2010 -- a year that did not include a presidential election -- $3.6 billion was spent. Of course, 2012 has the potential to break all records.

It's unclear exactly how much of an impact -- if any -- Schultz's CEO pledge might have. But a relatively small number of Americans do wield an outsized influence when it comes to political donations.

Only 0.04% of Americans give in excess of $200 to candidates, parties or political action committees -- and those donations account for 64.8% of all contributions.


Sources: CNN

Mitt Romney Fights To Remain GOP Frontrunner: Juggles Bachmann, Perry & Paul

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Bachmann wins Iowa straw poll as Perry jumps in

On the day that Texas Gov. Rick Perry formally joined the Republican presidential race, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) narrowly won the Iowa straw poll in a contest that dealt a major setback to third-place finisher Tim Pawlenty.

The events of Saturday marked the opening of an accelerating chapter in a 2012 GOP campaign that has been slow to take shape. With Mitt Romney established as the frontrunner for the nomination, the entry of Perry and the victory here by Bachmann are likely to reorder the field and intensify the competition to emerge as the former Massachusetts governor’s principal challenger.

Romney has dictated the pace of his campaign almost without regard to other contenders, and he has managed to avoid direct confrontations with the other Republicans in the field, most recently in Thursday’s debate. But that could change quickly as the GOP candidates look toward a September calendar that includes three nationally televised debates.

Bachmann captured 29 percent of almost 17,000 votes in the Ames straw poll and was closely followed by Texas Rep. Ron Paul, with 28 percent. Pawlenty received 14 percent. Former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum was fourth with 10 percent, and businessman Herman Cain was fifth, with 9 percent.

“This is the very first step toward taking the White House in 2012, and you have just sent a message that Barack Obama will be a one-term president,” Bachmann told supporters shortly after the results were announced.

Pawlenty’s disappointing finish threatens to end a candidacy that once held great promise. Until only a few months ago, many Republicans saw Pawlenty as a potentially strong candidate for the nomination. He has spent more time and money in Iowa than any other candidate.

In the run-up to the straw poll, which is not a reliable predictor of who wins later in the Iowa caucuses or finally receives the nomination, the former two-term Minnesota governor vowed to keep going no matter what the results were on Saturday. But he will have to reevaluate in light the tallies. By the time they were announced, Pawlenty and his senior team had packed up and left.

Pawlenty issued a statement congratulating Bachmann while claiming he had moved into a “competitive position” for next year’s caucuses. But he added, “We have a lot more work to do.”

Paul, who often runs strongly in straw polls, might have provided the biggest surprise of the day. But he has yet to demonstrate the broad appeal needed to win primaries or caucuses. Still, his finish is recognition that the iconoclastic conservative with the small-government message has greater resonance today than four years ago.

Perry formally announced his candidacy with a speech in South Carolina in which he criticized the policies of President Obama. “I will not sit back and accept the path that America is on because a great country requires a better direction, because a renewed nation needs a new president,” he said.

Perry has served longer than any other governor in Texas history and brings to the race solid conservative credentials, an affinity with both tea party activists and social conservatives, and an unbeaten record as a candidate.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

But he is untested on the national stage and will have little margin for error, because he joins a race in which other candidates have been testing their messages and building organizations for months or even years.

Bachmann, too, is a relatively new candidate, having announced her candidacy only two months ago. But in that short time she has established herself as a politician with a passionate following and a message built around her claim that she has fought harder than almost anyone in the party to oppose the president’s policies.

But Perry threatens to eclipse Bachmann. For the time being, he is likely to take attention away from her candidacy and could drain some of the support she has developed. The two, who will challenge Romney from the right, have overlapping constituencies, though GOP strategists see Perry as having potentially broader appeal and a longer, deeper record, given his 10 years as a chief executive.

Both will visit Waterloo on Sunday, which could offer early clues.

Romney is seen as a less-than-dominant frontrunner; although he is ahead in most of the national polls, his candidacy has not generated much passion among many of the party’s conservatives. But he has one significant advantage over his main rivals: He has run before and knows what to expect.

Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, who won the Iowa caucuses in 2008, was in Ames on Saturday and talked about what the race ahead might look like. On a day when many Republicans were asking what Perry would do to Romney, Huckabee said, “The question may be what Romney does to Perry. One thing Romney’s got going for him is that this is not his first rodeo. It’s a bruising experience.”

The straw poll turnout exceeded that of four years ago but was well below the 1999 record of more than 23,000. Perry was not on the ballot but, aided by an energetic write-in operation, finished sixth, just ahead of Romney, who was on the ballot. Former House speaker Newt Gingrich was eighth, followed by former Utah governor Jon Huntsman Jr. and Rep. Thaddeus McCotter of Michigan.

A victory by Paul would have been a blow to Bachmann, who brought considerable momentum to the vote and needed the victory to validate her standing as the frontrunner in the state. It also would have hurt the credibility and future of the straw poll, a number of Republicans here said.

Saturday’s straw poll drew a bigger-than-expected crowd, which reveled in the early fall weather, with blue skies, moderate temperatures and a slight breeze. By midday, traffic heading onto the Iowa State University campus was moving at a crawl.Once in the area, the candidates’ supporters faced long lines to vote.

As the voting took place, each of the candidates, flanked by their families and small armies of supporters, filed onto the floor in the Hilton Coliseum. Some of the campaigns played quick videos on the JumboTron above before their candidates took the microphone.

Few generated more enthusiasm than Bachmann, who confidently roamed the stage with a wireless microphone rather than standing still at the rostrum.

“We are going to do it. It’s going to happen — 2012 is ours,” Bachmann said as the nearly full coliseum erupted in cheers. “We’re going to take it back in 2012. All the energy we need to take the country back in 2012 — it’s right here in this room, in Ames, Iowa.”

Bachmann offered few details, delivering instead a sharp critique of Obama and an expression of her conservative principles, economic and social. She drew perhaps the loudest applause when she congratulated Iowans for voting out three state Supreme Court justices last year who had ruled against a law barring same-sex marriage.

Pawlenty, too, offered a withering critique of Obama’s Washington. He promised to reduce taxes, spending and regulation — and, as he has done everywhere on the trail over six weeks of intense campaigning across Iowa, he made the case that his record as governor distinguishes him from the similar promises of the rest of the field.

“Many of the Republican candidates for president are going to say many of the same things,” he said. “They’re going to say, ‘I’m the one who will reduce taxes. I’m the one who stands for the cause of life, I’m the one who stands for traditional marriage.’ But as you know, as we’ve seen with Barack Obama, just saying the words isn’t enough.”

As he has throughout his campaigns for president, Paul set himself apart from Republican orthodoxy. Like Bachmann, he drew a strong response. His ardent supporters, who filled much of the arena, cheered loudly as he made a passionate call for a return to the principles laid out in the Constitution, reforming monetary policy at the Federal Reserve and bringing U.S. forces home from throughout the world.

“We’re into wars that are costing us trillions of dollars,” Paul said. “Those wars are costing us jobs and prosperity.”

Santorum, who moved his family to the state last month and who visited 68 of the state’s 99 counties, called his campaign “the little engine that could,” saying, “This campaign is about scratching and clawing for every bit of recognition we can get.”He implored Iowa Republicans to recognize his conservative convictions as more deeply held than those of some of the others in the race.

Cain gave perhaps the most rousing speech of the afternoon, laying out his solutions for the country’s many “crises” and suggesting he is the product of a movement of citizens ready to take back their government. “This giant has awakened, and it’s not going back to sleep,” he said.

Displays of enthusiasm were even more pronounced on the lawns surrounding the Hilton Coliseum, where Bachmann supporters waited in a two-hour line to gain admission to her tent, eat a “beef sundae” and listen to country star Randy Travis perform.

In Pawlenty’s tent on the other side of the coliseum, organizers dished out 4,000 Dairy Queen Blizzards and 1,750 pounds of Famous Dave’s BBQ, but by midafternoon the crowds had dwindled and more tables sat empty than full inside a cavernous tent.


View Larger Map


Sources: CNN, MSNBC, Washington Post, Google Maps

DNC Attacks Romney With New Business Ad: "People Are Corporations"

DNC ad pits Romney against himself

The Democratic National Committee turned Mitt Romney’s words against himself in Des Moines Saturday, with an ad targeting the former Massachusetts governor’s stance on deficit reduction.

Pouncing on the 2012 presidential candidate’s comment that “corporations are people,” the DNC ad groups Romney with the tea party movement when it comes to methods of battling the deficit.

“Mitt Romney stands with the tea party,” an announcer states. “Up to 35 percent cut from social security, but not one more dime from corporations.”

The 30-second spot opens to Romney’s comments at the Iowa State Fair soap box, where hecklers, one of whom was a Democrat, chastised the candidate for defending corporations.

Mentioning that one method of generating revenue by raising taxes on people was “not the way,” Romney is interrupted with a public shout of “Corporations!”

“Corporations are people, my friend,” he retorts. “Of course they are. Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to people."

The ad closes with the statement “Mitt Romney. Putting Corporations First” - and paints the 2012 hopeful as a defender of big companies at the expense of “people.”

The ad will run in the Des Moines market during Saturday’s influential straw poll in Ames and into the beginning of next week.

DNC spokesman Brad Woodhouse confirmed that Romney “could see this [ad] in other states.”


View Larger Map

Sources: CNN, DNC, Politico, Youtube, Google Maps

Perry Enters GOP's 2012 Presidential Circus; Its GOP Vs. Tea Party!

Perry announces presidential bid


Rick Perry aimed Saturday to shift the attention from Iowa's straw poll to South Carolina, where he told conservative activists he is seeking the 2012 Republican presidential nomination.

The Texas governor made the announcement at the RedState Gathering in Charleston, one day after meeting with Alabama Republicans.

"I came to South Carolina because I cannot accept the path the country is on," Perry said. "A renewed nation needs a new president. It's time to get America working again."

Perry recited a litany of issues facing America, including debt, high unemployment and hefty energy costs. Leadership under President Barack Obama, he said, is "rudderless."

"It's time to believe the promise of our future is better than the best days behind us," Perry said to applause.

He launched his presidential campaign website, rickperry.org, shortly before the announcement.

The timing of the announcement buttressed Perry's bid to get attention on a busy day in American politics: His speech started the same hour as those given by candidates making a pitch for straw poll votes in Iowa, where he was not on the ballot.

Merle Black, a political science professor at Emory University in Atlanta, said Perry's appeal to both social and fiscal conservatives could be crucial in the South Carolina Republican primary, which every GOP presidential nominee has won since 1980.

"He would appeal to tea party Republicans, he would appeal to the individuals who are interested in job creation in the state," Black told CNN. "He can also, I think, appeal to evangelical Christians, and the overlap between evangelical tea party Republicans, economic development Republicans -- those are a lot of voters in a South Carolina Republican primary."

Perry also was scheduled to attend a Saturday event in Greenland, New Hampshire, a state where he is expected to launch an aggressive campaign.

South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley helped kick off the RedState conference, saying Republicans will unite to defeat President Barack Obama.

Perry told the South Carolina crowd that he has helped cut taxes and government spending in Texas.

Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt said Perry "pledged to support the 'cut, cap and balance' plan that would preserve subsidies for oil and gas companies and tax cuts for the wealthiest while ending Medicare as we know it, eroding Social Security, eliminating hundreds of thousands of jobs and erasing investments in education and research and development."

In a statement, LaBolt claimed the governor "allowed special interests to write their own rules, hired corporate lobbyists to oversee corporations, and cut funding for programs that would create opportunity for middle-class families."

Perry, a Christian, succeeded George W. Bush in the Texas governor's office and has held that job longer than anyone in state history. Now he looks poised to attempt to follow his predecessor's lead a second time.

According to a new interview with Time magazine, Perry described himself as "very calm in my heart that this is what I'm supposed to be doing."

His entry into the race will shake up the Republican field, putting Perry into direct competition with Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota for core right-wing support. Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, if she runs, also would vie for that backing.

A CNN/ORC International poll released Thursday showed 15% of Republican and independent voters who lean toward the GOP picked Perry as their choice for the Republican nomination.

That put Perry, still a noncandidate at the time, just 2 percentage points behind former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, considered the front-runner in the nominating process. Romney's advantage over Perry is within the survey's sampling error.

Working the crowd in Iowa, Romney on Friday said he expects a "more interesting contest" with Perry in the field.

Bachmann, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty and Texas Rep. Ron Paul are expected to take the top three positions in the nonbinding vote in Iowa.


View Larger Map

Sources: CNN, C-Span, DNC, Politico, Youtube, Google Maps

Mitt Romney Heckled At 2011 Ames Iowa Event: "Corporations Are People My Friend"

Romney says 'corporations are people,' heckled at Iowa event

On Thursday, Mitt Romney faced the joys and political perils of a frontrunner in the Republican presidential race: at times feeling his supporters' political crush - but also fending off catcalls and heckles by critics.

The spontaneous drama at the Iowa State Fair in Des Moines took several bizarre turns.

In one instance, the candidate declared "corporations are people" - a line surely to become ammunition for political opponents eager to cast Romney as a wealthy corporate raider unfamiliar with the concerns of average Americans.

At times Romney sounded populist themes, at one point saying: "If we're going to turn around the economy … Let's send some citizens to Washington." And yet, in another breath, the former Massachusetts governor defended big business against high taxes.

"Corporations are people, my friend," Romney said. "Everything a corporation earns ultimately goes to people."

Critics in the crowd laughed at Romney for the comment though his intent was unclear.

That hasn't stopped the Democratic National Committee from already seizing on the line.

"It is a shocking admission from a candidate-and a party-that shamelessly puts forward policies to help large corporations and the wealthiest Americans at the expense of the middle class, seniors, and students," DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz said in a statement.

In opening remarks, Romney reiterated familiar slams against President Obama.

"We're led by a man who's a fine fella. But he's out of his depth and doesn't understand how the economy works," Romney said.

It's when Romney ended his speech, and took questions from the audience, that things turned ugly.

Among the first questions shouted at Romney: "Do you support scrapping the Social Security payroll cap so that rich people pay their fair share into the trust fund?"

Romney's response: "You know there was a time in this country that we didn't celebrate attacking people based on their success. And we didn't go after people because they were successful."

Another questioner belted away at Romney.

"Sir, I am on Social Security," he said.

"My wife is on Social Security. You came here to listen to the people. How are you going to strengthen Social Security for the future?"

As the man continued to shout, Romney cut him short.

"You asked your question and now I am going to give my answer. If you don't like my answer then you can vote for someone else," Romney chastised. "But now it is my turn to give my answer."

The man later identified himself as Joe Fagen, a 71-year old former Catholic priest. He is the founder of the liberal community activist group Citizens for Community Improvement. In the past, Fagen has similarly heckled other Republican politicians.

As Romney insisted he would not raise taxes, the exchange became testy not unlike a defining moment in 1980 as then presidential hopeful Ronald Reagan demanded access to a Republican debate and at one point shouted at a moderator, "I am paying for this microphone."

In perhaps the most tense moment of the event, yet another man shouted that Romney should support scrapping the Social Security payroll cap.

"You want to raise taxes? You want to raise taxes," Romney shouted back at the man.


View Larger Map


Sources: CNN, C-Span, TMPTV, Youtube, Google Maps

"Nice Girls" Get Slammed In Corporate America! Women Leaders

FYI: Ladies That Sweet As Candy, Fake "Nice Girls" Act Doesn't Cut It In Corporate America. Do You Have To Be A Beast To Be Heard & Respected? YES! Ask Oprah! Are You Expected To Be One Of The Guys? NO! But You Are Expected To Grow Some Thick Skin & NOT Cry In Front Of Your Co-Workers Just Because You Have PMS Or Lose A Debate. Especially If You Are A BLACK Woman. White Women May Be Allowed To Slide But Not Sisters!

Its Really True What They Say About "Nice Girls" In Corporate America. They DO Finish Last!



How 'Nice Girls' Can Avoid the Entrepreneurial Plateau


The authors of “Nice Girls Just Don’t Get It” examine why women often don’t break through as leading entrepreneurs.

Women are leaving corporate America at twice the rate of men according to a study by Cheskin Research (now Cheskin Added Value), a California-based strategic market research and consulting company. No longer willing to devote their time and energy to employers who won’t meet their needs, they’re starting their own enterprises where they have more flexibility and opportunities for unlimited income and upward mobility.

Or do they?

The U.S Women’s Chamber of Commerce reports that the overall revenues captured by women-owned businesses hovers around 4 percent. Compare that to the 28 percent captured by private firms owned by men and 64 percent captured by publicly held companies. Only one in five women-owned businesses nets more than a million dollars annually.

Relying on old messages they learned in childhood about behaviors that were appropriate for little girls, some women who venture out on their own miss opportunities and overlook the ways in which they can grow their businesses. We refer to these women as “nice girls.”

Nice-girl syndrome has been the downfall of more than a few women’s enterprises — but it doesn’t have to derail yours.

We’ve identified five traps that can keep women entrepreneurs from achieving their full growth potential — and antidotes for overcoming them.

1.) Unclear vision, strategies and tactics. Nice girls often start their businesses with energy and passion but no concrete vision for where they ultimately want to be, how much they want to earn, and the size to which they aspire to grow. They hesitate to reach broadly for fear others will think they’re too cocky, and are so busy “doing” that they fail to put time into planning.

Antidote: Define your future. It may sound simple, but it goes beyond a vague statement of being successful or rich. Your vision for the future must have teeth. Until you envision what you want and articulate the people and processes needed to achieve it, you’ll likely march in place.

2.) Unwillingness to leverage connections. In an episode of “The Apprentice,” the challenge was to sell cupcakes, with the team earning the most money winning the task. The women created a plan to sell the most cupcakes. The men picked up the phone and called friends willing to pay $100 to $1,000 per cupcake. Who do you think won? The women actually worked harder, but lost. Nice girls are great at building relationships, but not so great at using them to their advantage.

Antidote: Understand and honor quid pro quos. Inherent to every relationship is a quid pro quo — something in exchange for something else. When you do favors or go out of your way for others, you earn capital that can be cashed in when you need it. Ask for what you need from the people in your network you have served well. Don’t be naive. It’s the way to win your game.

3.) Difficulty creating boundaries. One of the primary reasons women leave corporate jobs is so that they have more control over their time. What many soon learn is that others perceive them as “unemployed” rather than “self-employed” and encroach on their time, space or both. How does this play out in the life of a woman business owner? Friends expect her to be available for lunch in the middle of the day now that she’s “free.” Spouses want her to take over more of the home chores. If you’re a nice girl, you may have difficulty setting boundaries around your need to spend time on your endeavor.

Antidote: Define your workday, week and space. Don’t be apologetic about telling friends you can’t join them for lunch because you’re working, or asking your spouse to pick up his own dry cleaning on the way home from the office. The more clearly you define the parameters of your work, the easier it will be to let others know where the boundaries are.

4.) Diluted messaging. In an effort not to sound overly aggressive, nice girls water down their messages to the point that others have difficulty understanding what they are saying. They are unable to clearly state their company's mission or concisely explain why others should do business with them. Using more words when fewer would do, apologizing before offering an idea, and inappropriate smiling are but a few of the ways in which women fail to come across as authoritative and self-confident.

Antidote: Get to the point. Short sounds confident. Cut your communications by 25 percent.

5.) Work/life imbalance. The No. 1 question women ask us is, “How do I create more balance between my work and my personal life?” When you are creating a startup, there is no balance. The most you can do is integrate the things that are most important to you.

Antidote: Avoid perfectionism, ask for help and be realistic about what you can and can’t do in any given time period. Mary Kay Ash, founder of Mary Kay cosmetics, had her children pack makeup in the garage — but they did it as a family. And look where it got her!

Recognizing the nice-girl behaviors that hold you back, and acting to counter them, will help you realize your entrepreneurial dream. We know because we’ve been there and done it.


Sources: Amazon.com, MSNBC, Google, Youtube

Valerie Jarrett vs Angry Business Leaders; Tax Cuts Not Games!

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Business: Barack Obama's Corporate Outreach Not Enough


After Business Leaders sank Millions into the Midterms to defeat Democrats, a chastened Obama administration is seeking reconciliation with the Corporate community.

But after two years of building frustration, the executives say they won’t be won over by another round of private lunches and photo opportunities at the White House.

If President Barack Obama has any hope for a truce with corporate America in time for his 2012 reelection campaign, he needs to drop the name-calling, try to see their point of view better and step up with some specific proposals.


(See: Poll: Non-voters split over Obama)


“No amount of relationship-building is a substitute for policy,” said Johanna Schneider, executive director for external affairs at the Business Roundtable, which was once one of the administration’s most enduring corporate allies.

“We have to see some concrete policies that will help grow business because everyone’s goal is to grow jobs. This isn’t hocus-pocus. There are concrete steps to take for job growth,” she added.

The White House is embarking on a new round of corporate outreach, said Valerie Jarrett, a key White House adviser, who told POLITICO in an interview that she is lining up a fresh round of private, luncheon sessions and that other events could be in the works.

The White House is also mulling over an Obama appearance at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce — even though the group spent about $75 million attacking Democrats and assisting the Republican takeover of the House. (See: Obama plans truce with Chamber)

“Our position moving forward is to find as many opportunities as possible to interact with the business community,” said Jarrett. “The president is very interested in the coming weeks in hearing additional input from the business community.”

The White House’s relationship with the corporate world has always had a sort of Mars-Venus quality to it. Business leaders say Obama simply doesn’t get them and has no one in the White House with corporate experience or who is steeped in the daily challenges of operating in a global economy. It didn’t help when Obama lashed out at “fat cat bankers” on Wall Street at the height of the regulatory reform effort or attacked BP, a onetime White House ally on energy reform, in the midst of the Louisiana oil spill. (See: OMB's Lew confirmed after hold lifted)

The message to other sectors: "You could be next," said one corporate lobbyist.

Some White House officials, in turn, privately express frustration that the business world seems to give Obama no credit for supporting bailouts of Wall Street and the auto industry as well as an economic stimulus bill that likely spared the country a deeper recession. Many CEOs now are enjoying hefty corporate profits and a Dow at healthy levels in part because of Obama’s efforts in steering the economy through the global meltdown, administration officials contend.

But the stakes for Obama couldn’t be higher, economically or politically, in rebuilding relations. Cooperation with the business community is vital for job growth and economic recovery. Expanding trade and cutting the deficit, two other Obama priorities, will require Republican votes — which the business community could deliver.

David Cote, the chief executive officer of Honeywell Corp. and a supporter of the White House policies, said gains can occur with a concerted effort by the administration.

“The administration is being thoughtful about getting input. You will see more outreach,” said Cote, who recently traveled with Obama to Asia to highlight trade and serves on the White House deficit commission. “I find it hard to believe people in the business community will turn a deaf ear to that. I don’t view that as being unrecoverable.”

In September, Obama called for deep investments in infrastructure projects. He also proposed expanding and permanently extending the research and development tax credit and allowing businesses to write off 100 percent of the expenses for new plants and other investments immediately — three items on the business community's wish-list for years.

Other administration officials are also reaching out.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner met privately with Chamber President Tom Donohue during the White House Asia trade trip and appeared before the Chamber’s board a week after the midterms — a striking departure from a White House-Chamber feud that briefly grabbed headlines last year and during those very same elections.

On Dec. 8, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius are scheduled to meet with the Business Roundtable, an association that includes the CEOs of the nation’s largest companies.

But there have been some bumps along the way.

Last week, Treasury’s Gene Sperling appeared at a retreat for technology executives. “He expressed a desire to work closely,” said one attendee. “Then, when we brought up the issue of repatriation [the opportunity for corporations to bring overseas earnings back to the U.S. at lower tax rates], he openly showed frustration with us for just bringing the subject up.”

It’s a complaint heard often from the business community. “Access isn’t the issue. The question is: Where is the delivery?” said one corporate representative who, like others, sought anonymity to speak freely.

Greg Brown, CEO of Motorola and an administration ally, said the White House had to take necessary but politically difficult steps to stabilize the economy. But he also noted, “Now that we are moving from stability to growth, I think there is an acknowledgment that the relationship needs to get closer and we collectively need to find common ground.”

To achieve that, the White House must overcome a hefty wariness in the business community about Obama’s populist bent that exploded into open warfare during the midterms when wealthy individuals and corporations spent more than $200 million trying to defeat Democrats.

“The amount of money they spent was rather stunning,” said an administration official.

One of the most striking break-ups of 2010 was between Obama and the Business Roundtable.

From the start of his administration, Obama framed the coalition of CEOs as the grown-up alternative to the Chamber. In turn, the Roundtable CEOs made a conscious decision to try to work with the White House.

But as final negotiations over health care heated up earlier this year and several of their concerns were left unresolved, frustrated voices dominated the monthly CEO meetings. They grew even louder when the White House turned to Wall Street regulatory reform.

Still, the CEOs voted in February, March, April and May to stay at the table. In June, they gave up.

Why? The infamous consumer watchdog office? The new health care mandates? No, say insiders familiar with internal discussions, the roundtable walked away because of a group of technical fixes to the health care and Wall Street reform laws they sought — and in some cases were assured would be done — that never got done.

For instance, one provision they wanted deleted from the Wall Street bill gives labor leaders and other minority shareholders a chance to change the way corporate boards are formed — viewed as a “poke in the eye” by the Roundtable’s CEOs.

Another removed a tax incentive for providing retiree drug coverage, which roundtable officials warned would increase Medicare costs and force companies that dropped the coverage to publicly restate their earnings because of the lost tax breaks.

When several did, the headlines that followed linking their action to the reform bill prompted a profanity-laced call from former White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and threats of hearings on Capitol Hill.
And a third curbed corporate trading of special purpose derivatives, a long-standing revenue-generating mechanism that wasn’t related to the highly speculative trading that led to the economic collapse.

“These weren’t issues that got the president any votes or political leverage,” said one insider to the conversations. “These were issues that demonstrated that this administration doesn’t get it. It’s like talking to your dog.”

The Roundtable’s Schneider conceded that “the tone and tenor of the dialogue wasn’t as collegial as one might have hoped.” But she said the trade group kept up a dialogue with the White House and that several Roundtable CEOs were on Obama’s recent Asia trip, which became “an important relationship-building effort.”

Other executives complain that the White House continually promised a “hard pivot” to job creation and the economy that never fully materialized, at least not in a way that made corporate America feel it could be part of the solution.

“There was no challenge to come work together for a common purpose,” one executive said. “There was never a call for weekly conference calls with the president and demands to go get stuff done. That’s the power he has as president. And instead they kept pushing people away.”

The way Jarrett sees it, the White House was dealt a bad economic hand and had no choice but to move aggressively with legislation that had sweeping and intrusive impacts on the private markets — a course Obama had not necessarily advocated when he launched his presidential bid before the economic meltdown.

As a consequence, the business community had a lot to digest about what exactly the Obama administration meant to them, which created some uncertainty about the course ahead.

Now that the administration is drafting the regulations to implement the reform laws, White House officials said, tensions should ease as business leaders see that they are coordinating to ensure there are no unintended consequences.

Jarrett also said trade, tax reform, deficit reduction and education are all areas where the business community and the White House share common ground and could join ranks for action.

Brown, of Motorola, said it will take “compromise, conviction and courage” for both parties to make the changes necessary to improve the economy and create a robust job environment.

“The fact of the matter is these are tough times, politically charged and very emotional. As a country, there is no easy formula or short cut here. This is tough stuff,” he said.

“We’re coming out of a dark tunnel, and it’s been hard. It’s been hard on everybody, the public and private sector. Now, we need to lock and go.”


View Larger Map


Sources: CNBC, MSNBC, Politico, Google Maps