Tea Partiers Who Likely Violated 501(c)(4) Rules Are, Of Course, Leading the Complaints About the IRS

Bill Hennessy, founder of the St. Louis Tea Party, was recently on Larry Kudlow's CNBC show complaining about the IRS targeting the tea party for additional scrutiny:

Similarly, Missouri GOP Chair Ed Martin is in the Post-Dispatch talking about how the IRS "corruption" will galvanize the tea party.

Their promotion of the issue by this pair is especially ironic considering that I documented, on multiple occasions, the St. Louis Tea Party publicly advocating their endorsement of Ed Martin in a Missouri Congressional race in violation of the rules governing 501(c)(4) organizations, which state that such organizations are not allowed to endorse candidates (see here, p. 7, first full paragraph) and communicate that endorsement to the public.

Back in the 2010 elections, the tea party paid for billboards featuring Martin and his Democratic opponent Russ Carnahan that prompted former Post-Dispatch reporter Jake Wagman to write:

But unless Carnahan supporters really do have their head down, it won't be hard to see through the intent of the billboard, which, if it sparks a legal challenge, could spell trouble for the Tea Party.  

As I noted at the time, there were other tea party actions that were not "straddling the line" (Wagman's phrase);  they were clearly endorsing Ed Martin in a manner intended to communicate with the general public.  First, the St. Louis Tea Party posted advertisements around the web that led directly to a web page that stated "Ed Martin Deserves To Serve Instead of Russ Carnahan." They've deleted the original post now, but you can see it at the Way Back machine.
Here's my screen shot of the ad at the conservative blog Reboot Congress:

Similarly, here's a screenshot of an advertisement that appeared on Breitbart.com that states, "Paid for by the St. Louis Tea Party Coalition:"

Here's the ad appearing on Big Government:

The ad that time took people to a tea party "Get Out the Vote" page that featured a video of Bill Hennessy saying the following:

I'm going to ask you to take one hour, just one hour, Monday or Tuesday, to come to the St. Louis Tea Party Headquarters at 4512 Hampton Avenue in St. Louis Hills, just south of Hampton Village, and give one hour to phone calls or knocking on doors asking your friends and neighbors, your fellow citizens to go to the polls on Tuesday and vote for Ed Martin and the tea party candidates across the ballot.

The tea party also put up yard signs and attended rallies with signs that read "Taxpayers for Ed Martin" but included "St. Louis Tea Party" decals.

It would have been very easy for them to simply use advertisements or signage that simply said, "Vote for the pro-liberty candidate (wink wink)."  But they didn't.  They deliberately flaunted 501(c)(4) rules by endorsing Ed Martin.  And now they have the audacity to go on national TV and complain about the IRS looking at tea party groups. 

One last irony from the Kulow video worth mentioning: another guest was an employee of Americans For Prosperity, the astroturf group funded by the billionaire Koch brothers.  This raises an issue that I think hasn't been discussed enough as part of the IRS "scandal." People say it would be wrong for the IRS to target particular groups just because of their political beliefs, and this, of course, is true.  But that isn't necessarily the only reason the IRS has for looking closely at the tea party groups.  As most people know, the tea party wasn't as "spontaneous" as they liked to portray, and they received a lot of help and coordination from big-money backed groups, including especially the Koch Brothers' Americans for  Prosperity.  So if there's evidence that a number of groups are coordinating with one another or being coordinated while applying for 501(c)(4) status, and that some of those groups are flaunting the rules, then that seems to me to provide a reason for carefully looking at the groups, entirely independently of their political beliefs.

Update: Several people are telling me that Wagman's claim that 501(c)(4)s "can't communicate their endorsement to the public at large" is based on a misreading. If that's true, then the tea party doesn't seem to be violating the post Citizen's United interpretation of 501(c)(4) rules, just operating in the murky actually-functioning-as-a-political-organization-designed-solely-to-win-elections-while-technically-following-the-law landscape that we already knew about.

Hazardous Conditions: New Report ranks Missouri 35th in nation on workplace safety

As the Missouri legislature winds down and high-profile tragedies in the U.S. and worldwide are still fresh in our minds, a new report shows Missouri has a long way to go on workplace safety. According to “Death on the Job: The Toll ofNeglect,” released by the AFL-CIO on Tuesday, Missouri ranks 35^th in the nation in workplace safety.

Just one worker killed on the job is too many, but the report details 132 Missouri workers who went to work in 2011 and never made it back home. At a rate of 4.9 deaths per 100,000 workers, this puts Missouri behind 34 out of 50 states. Neighboring Arkansas and Kansas are among the worst states for workplace fatalities, along with North Dakota, Wyoming and Montana.

Missouri AFL-CIO Secretary Treasurer Mike Louis said politics is a factor. “While too many people are dying on the job right here in Missouri, too many of our elected officials are trying to make it more difficult for Missourians to exercise their collective bargaining rights to ensure health and safety protections at work,” said Louis.

“Some of the most dangerous states in the country are so-called ‘right to work’ states – and that’s no coincidence. In states were fewer workers are able to have a voice on the job and to advocate for better working conditions, corporations cut corners and take risks that cause devastating consequences.”

Another issue cited in the report is underfunding of enforcement agencies. Due to a lack of staffing it would take the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) a whopping 111 years to inspect each workplace in Missouri – just once.

Louis said “Our elected leaders should find ways to make things better and reduce these tragic numbers, not push more dangerous legislation like ‘right to work’ and paycheck deception. Workplace safety needs to be a priority on the federal, state and local level.”

Across the country there’s much work to do. The report notes that in 2011, there were 4,693 workplace deaths due to traumatic injuries and more than 3.8 million workers across all industries, including state and local government, who experienced work-related illnesses and injuries.

"Unbeknownst to the mayor..."

Since today is the exciting Family Day holiday at my new home, I had a chance to check in on the St. Louis Mayoral race just in time to hear about a press conference held this morning criticizing the Slay administration for requiring new workers to sign a form stating that their benefits could be taken away at any time.  Here's the form, first posted by progressive radio host Lizz Brown on her facebook page:

Some labor people I know on facebook thought it wasn't a big deal since it included the clause, "...unless otherwise agreed through the collective bargaining process" at the end of the document, but it was serious enough that Slay met with members of the St. Louis Labor Council this morning and promised to change the language.

In later stories on the subject, Slay's Chief of Staff Jeff Rainford gave plausible-ish sounding explanations of what happened, but even so, there was a quote from Rainford in the original KMOX story that seems to be extremely misleading at best and has yet to be explained.  When initially deflecting the story, Rainford told KMOX the forms were put in place without the mayor's knowledge:

“Unbeknownst to the mayor, the city counselor recommended that the personnel department ask new employees to sign that document.

Yet emails posted by Alderman Antonio French shows that Rainford, as well as other Slay employees Eddie Roth and Mary Ellen Ponder, were included in the email chain that specifically requested that the forms be implemented before the hiring of new employees:

Considering that Rainford was included in this email, at face value it looks like he was lying when he claimed this was "unbeknownst to the mayor."  At best, you could claim that maybe he wasn't lying-lying since Slay wasn't personally included on the email.  But for a chief of staff to try to deflect responsibility by saying the mayor didn't know about something while conveniently not mentioning that he personally did know about it is pretty outrageous, in my opinion.

Yet none of the later stories asked Rainford to explain why he claimed the mayor didn't know about the request, and based on past experience it's pretty unlikely that anyone in the St. Louis media ever will.

today's Peabody action: a personal bit

About to hop on down to the fun at Peabody today (starting at 11 at Kiener Plaza ... you can still make it!). Here's a personal statement I was asked to write up for the occasion. You can read the rest of the personal statements at the RAMPS website. They'll cover both Tuesday's Arch Coal action, and today's action(s) at Peabody.

No doubt that there will be lots of media coming out from MORE, RAMPS, BMIS, and some local news sources during the day. Check all that out and have fun on this moderately warmer day.

Here's the personal crap:

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

I came to Saint Louis for graduate school, hoping to do research that would bring about technological solutions to climate change.   Underlying this standard graduate student naivete was the far more ubiquitous and far, far more dangerous overreliance on and faith in technology. In the context of our world, where global industrial Capitalism reigns supreme and demands continuous growth and exploitation, the question "which technology will save us from climate change?" is moot. There is no fancy solar cell, or wind turbine, or nuclear whatever that could ever hope to address the crises of Capitalism.

On this day I'm going off to participate in the rally at Peabody to stand in solidarity with everyone in Appalachia, the Navajo and Hopi Nations, Saint Louis, and every other living community. I want to draw attention to the decades of exploitation that the Navajo and Hopi nations have endured due to Peabody's role in this repugnant system. I want to draw attention to the way we exploit our planet, and how that is driving us to the brink.

Will today's actions significantly stop emissions, or stop Peabody? No, probably not. Will this give people who work at Peabody or the lines upon lines of police that will inevitably be protecting Peabody's headquarters any time to pause and really consider what it is that they're defending? Almost certainly not. Will it bring a renewed sense of hope and ease and invigorate the ongoing struggle? That would be nice and I hope that happens. This is just one action and one day.

We're steadily marching towards a future that will see a 4 degree Celsius rise in global temperature, if not more. This scenario at least ensures a global level of suffering and death that we've never witnessed before and can hardly imagine. At worst it means there won't be a human species any more, let alone countless other species.

The actions that I and everyone else take on this day should be judged in this context. Is today's action enough? Of course not. Is it too rash or radical? Give me a break. We will all learn from the experiences of today, and we will experience the mounting pressures, and change accordingly.

There is no hope for an environmentally just world as long as giant fossil fuel companies such as Peabody are allowed to exist. I hope that others will join in the fight against this corporation and all that it represents. Standing on the sidelines will not ensure our safety or the safety of those we care for.

climate change ennui / discussion / training

Here are some more or less direct quotes from people when I talk to them about environmental issues:

"I don't know enough." "I'm not sure what to do." "The problem is too big." "Well we're screwed anyway. Let's drink PBR and be apathetic until the climate refugees come knocking on our doorstep and our ridiculous food system falls apart." "I got mine." "I would prefer it to be 100 degrees and 100% humidity." (a direct quote from myself. winter go away.)

These sentiments and their variations are understandable given the society we live in. In order to move past these points to a place where we can take action together we're hosting a discussion next Monday, the 21st, at 7 PM in the SEIU Office (5585 Pershing Ave). If you feel as if you don't have the information needed to act then please stop on by. If you also feel as if you aren't empowered to act, that the problem is too big, etc., then again please come on out. These concerns are perfectly understandable, and it is sometimes useful to work through them with other folks. This isn't going to be a therapy session, but it's worth acknowledging that this world is pretty adept at making people feel not empowered and not in control.

Other upcoming activities ...

The MORE-RAMPS-BMIS Winter Action Camp has an intensive two-day training this weekend that you can still sign up for. This will be an excellent opportunity for people who want more skills in tackling environmental issues. The organizations involved will bring their experiences from working and living in Saint Louis, Appalachia, and the Navajo and Hopi Nations and will blast you with all sorts of knowledge and skills. This really is a rare opportunity and I would highly recommend attending if you can!

And for those that are interested in more spectacular things ... There are some particular local corporations that are guilty of a great deal of environmental devastation that are no doubt gearing up security measures and having chats with local law enforcement. While police lines protecting corporations that are culpable for the most violence and destruction in this society is passé, there may be some fun surprises in store for those that keep their eyes peeled in the upcoming days. January is for having fun!

STL Climate Change Year in Review - Drought, Cease-and-Desists, and Acción!

Hello everyone.

Have you enjoyed your nice turkey dinners? Have you enjoyed / endured your families? Have you done away with your ironic Christmas sweaters and steeled yourself for the reality of the new year? Time for resolutions and reflection and etc.!

2012 was a bit of a doozy for climate change shenanigans. Globally we had the Doha climate talks and record high carbon emissions, nationally we had many environmentalists nearly weep with joy since Obama was still physically capable of speaking the words "climate change" (acting on it appropriately still a different matter), regionally we suffered from one of the worst droughts in US history, and locally Saint Louis still reigns supreme as CO2 Emissions HQ.

Also locally, concerned groups and individuals have continued to hammer at Peabody Energy, the world's largest coal company, for its unique role as a perpetrator of climate change. Unions and environmental groups took aim at the tax-dodging polluter at its shareholder meeting as part of the 99% Spring. The city-wide sustainable future ballot initiative has taken off, and 2012 also saw the first concerted targeting of institutions in Saint Louis that provide cover for or legitimize what Peabody does. The message is that cities are not havens or playgrounds for powerful, polluting corporate interests.

Lots-o'-laughs, bit of police state and corporate intimidation, and new strong relationships formed ... but what's the point? How do you know you're doing anything useful? Well one way to measure success is by the reaction of the interests you are opposing. Peabody Energy was nice enough to acknowledge in the kindest terms (by way of a cease-and-desist letter) the work that a number of people in Saint Louis have been doing:

It's hard to interpret this cease-and-desist letter as anything other than a glowing review and so we were delighted to accept it. Because they are so supportive, Peabody should know that "disruption of its annual shareholders meeting, vandalism of one of its billboards, ... and an untruthful claim" regarding one of its "philanthropic partners" is just a preview of what's headed their way this year. Until they take the keen business advice given to them by some disruptive shareholders of not existing, then their continued exploitation of people and the planet will be brought to light in potentially unflattering ways.

Of course Peabody is really just a collection of legal documents, folks collecting paychecks, and executives capable of the normal sort of cognitive dissonance-enabled death wishes needed in order to satisfy their shareholders while avoiding reality. The struggle is broader than a handful of corporations, and there will be plenty of discussion to go around on how best to address climate change (see below for such opportunities). Anyone can get involved!

So what's some stuff going on right now??!?....

The STL Sustainable Energy Future Ballot Initiative is on its way to collecting the requisite number of signatures to get on the next ballot for a city-wide vote. No longer will giant extractive industries (or their lobbyists and lawyers) be able to get tax breaks from a city that needs to get its head on straight about who should benefit from such tax breaks. There are signature-gathering caravans heading out regularly so if you'd like to get involved then contact Arielle at arielle@organizemo.org.

MORE, RAMPS, and BMIS are jointly hosting a Winter Action Camp this month. You can still register for a two-day intensive training open to the public on January 19th and 20th (contact arielle@organizemo.org for info). In addition to this intensive training there will be a community-wide discussion on January 21st at 7 PM at the SEUI Office (5585 Pershing Ave) to address what should be done on the ground to confront climate change. This discussion will go beyond the usual suspects of what's generally offered as a solution to climate change and allow for people to get informed and get empowered.

On a personal note, because climate change is the most important issue in my life, I spend a great amount of time trying to figure out how to convey my thoughts on the matter. Am I being too radical or not radical enough? Am I being too preachy or am I not being honest about what I know is at stake? Am I not acknowledging the high amount of privilege I have to be able to say and do things I think are necessary? How should I appeal to every type of person? I really don't like writing, and I hate "messaging."

I don't know what it takes to convince anyone reading this to act for the preservation of the environment. I can relate personal stories, I can give dire facts, I can share what gives me hope, but I don't know what of that will work. And so what I would ask is that you take the time to consider your actions, and constantly reassess what is best for you to do, and to be honest when doing so. I beg that you do this, because so far what we have been doing collectively as a species is not working, and we are running out of time. I have reason to believe that we can succeed, and I know that you don't have to feel powerless. You're not.

Bill McClellan Presents an Terrible Solution to a Terrible Problem

Bill McClellan recently wrote a column supporting racial profiling.

Here it is - read it if you haven't already.

McClellan compared the problem of St. Louis smog in the 1930s to the problem of crime in the 2010s.

He outlines how the solution to the smog problem was to ban dirty Illinois coal.

His solution to the present crime problem is to suspend the constitution and then mandate intensive racial profiling. He wants to target young black men. He wants them all frisked. He wants their mothers to go to jail if they are found with weapons.

Basically Bill McClellan has compared young black men to dirty Illinois coal.

Does he think that he has come up with a new idea when he suggests the labeling of all young black males as a suspect criminal class and then targeting them for police harassment, detention, arrest and imprisonment? It might be useful for Bill to read The New Jim Crow to get a better idea of what has been going on during the last 30 years with the so called War on Drugs.

Punishing an entire class of people based on the crimes of some of these these people is called collective punishment. It is an assault on the constitution that McClellan wants to suspend. Of course, why should Bill care? He is an old white man, not a young black man. He's not part of the suspect group. He's not advocating that police harass him - he's asking police to harass other people. I guess he would still want the constitution to apply to him, just not to young black people. Now there is a new, modern idea - a constitution for one race but not another race.

I do read Bill McClellan's columns. I realize that his ideas here are not motivated out of hatred, but rather a desire to stop killings. I do realize, as he states in his column, that the majority of murder victims in the St. Louis area are also young black people and McClellan's heart aches for victims like Anya Cook who he wrote about recently.

Regardless of the reason why, the ideas he presents are appalling - he suggested suspending the constitution for a category of people based on their age and race.