If there is one thing that seems to bind together many of the paid PCE workers and consultants it's this: Hostility.
Each of the PCE ads and presentations I've seen has a strong undercurrent that is downright hostile. Hostile to teachers, to school administrators, to parents, to anyone who disagrees with their numbers or their opinions.
Read this diatribe about our public schools below, which is pasted from a pro-voucher blogger:
"It is only from a special point of view that education is a failure. As to its own purposes, it is an unqualified success. One of its purposes is to serve as a massive tax-supported jobs program for legions of not especially able or talented people. As social programs go, it's a good one. The pay isn't high, but the risk is low, the standards are lenient, entry is easy, and job security is pretty good...in fact, the system is perfect, except for one little detail. We must find a way to get the children out of it."
And, most of PCE's paid ads are a rant against the teachers' association. You know, it is your teachers (and my Mom) who belong, voluntarily, to the association.
Even toward the end of Richard and Linda Eyre's 7-minute Oreo cookie video, Richard says to the camera, "and if our schools have to cut a few teachers, that won't be so bad..." (which of course causes one to question his wide-eyed claims that schools will hire MORE teachers because of vouchers).
There are even the PCE-led letters to the editor that claim that Utah's public schools are controlled and "monopolized" by teachers through their union. Clearly that can't be true because if the teachers' association controlled education, then they would be the best paid teachers in the country! And, they wouldn't have to deal with the huge classes that they have. Too, Utah would be a lot better than last in the nation in per pupil funding.
With so much hostility emanating from the PCE campaign, it is impossible to believe their latest ad, in which U.S. Congressman Rob Bishop says: "I know how hard our Utah teachers work and what a great job they do with the resources they have."
The hyprocrisy is surreal.
P.S. For those who tuned in for the next chapter on Patrick Byrne, it will be forthcoming. There is a LOT of material to go through.
Showing posts with label Parents for Choice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Parents for Choice. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Monday, October 15, 2007
Mr. Byrne and Associates
Although campaign reports aren't due until the end of the month, it's pretty obvious that Parents for Choice in Education(PCE) is getting a huge influx of money from SOMEWHERE or SOMEONE. They're running a field operation (that includes lots and lots of e-mails, so watch your inbox for their spam), have increased their TV and radio ads, and generally don't seem to be as underfunded as they once claimed.
Again we ask, where is the money coming from? Patrick Byrne, CEO of Overstock.com, has put plenty of his own money into PCE and the legislators' PIC. Or is Byrne tapping his friends?
We have the report from California that money was going to be diverted to the Utah voucher issue. Charles Hurth, the Missouri mystery-man behind the money in California was linked to Byrne through his failed "First Class Education" operation - a short-lived concept that went defunct in every state.
Or, is Byrne getting money out of his friends from the Milton and Rose Friedman Foundation? (The Friedman Foundation exists solely to get taxpayer funds diverted from public to private schools via school vouchers.)
On the Board with Byrne are two familiar names in voucher schools: William Hume, a huge donor to the "All Children Matter" operation in Michigan, and one Howard S. Rich from New York City. (You can learn more about Howie Rich here.)
Or, is Byrne really digging deep in his own pocket to fund PCE? He certainly seems to have a lot of personal money, despite the fact that his company isn't doing well. (Please look here and here for some thorough reviews of Byrne's business dealings. I must say these are very telling and thanks to Gary Weiss and Sam Antar for the information they've posted.)
Byrne, of course, was born into a well-to-do family. He had all the privileges and connections that enabled him to get a good education, graduating from Walt Whitman High School, then Dartmouth, then Stanford.
His father, Jack, proved himself to be a very smart businessman, saving GEICO insurance from near bankruptcy. Jack also served on Boards and such for both Dartmouth and Stanford, positions that undoubtedly helped young Patrick.
Patrick Byrne has proven himself to be resilient, surviving bouts with cancer, becoming a heavyweight fighter and an expert in martial arts. He's a pilot, though he hasn't apparently flown in some time. (More later about a little incident in 1997.)
But there are also some things that are a little "odd" about Patrick. Like someone who tilts at windmills but can't even get that right. His "jihad" against the "Sith Lords" (his words, not mine) that he claims are ruining Overstock.com seems more than a little off the charts.
And, his relationship to a Col. Bo Gritz seems a little strange, too. Gritz recounts his relationship with a young Patrick Byrne in China. Seems Gritz used Patrick as an "agent" in Asia. Young Patrick sought Gritz's counsel, and later Gritz claims to have helped Patrick attain a "miraculous" recovery from his cancer. You can read Gritz's claims here, once you get past some of the religious verbiage and the rants about Ruby Ridge.
Some of these references are Patrick's early years. We will continue to explore his relationships to people, and we will see if we can figure out who - besides Patrick Byrne - is funding PCE.
Again we ask, where is the money coming from? Patrick Byrne, CEO of Overstock.com, has put plenty of his own money into PCE and the legislators' PIC. Or is Byrne tapping his friends?
We have the report from California that money was going to be diverted to the Utah voucher issue. Charles Hurth, the Missouri mystery-man behind the money in California was linked to Byrne through his failed "First Class Education" operation - a short-lived concept that went defunct in every state.
Or, is Byrne getting money out of his friends from the Milton and Rose Friedman Foundation? (The Friedman Foundation exists solely to get taxpayer funds diverted from public to private schools via school vouchers.)
On the Board with Byrne are two familiar names in voucher schools: William Hume, a huge donor to the "All Children Matter" operation in Michigan, and one Howard S. Rich from New York City. (You can learn more about Howie Rich here.)
Or, is Byrne really digging deep in his own pocket to fund PCE? He certainly seems to have a lot of personal money, despite the fact that his company isn't doing well. (Please look here and here for some thorough reviews of Byrne's business dealings. I must say these are very telling and thanks to Gary Weiss and Sam Antar for the information they've posted.)
Byrne, of course, was born into a well-to-do family. He had all the privileges and connections that enabled him to get a good education, graduating from Walt Whitman High School, then Dartmouth, then Stanford.
His father, Jack, proved himself to be a very smart businessman, saving GEICO insurance from near bankruptcy. Jack also served on Boards and such for both Dartmouth and Stanford, positions that undoubtedly helped young Patrick.
Patrick Byrne has proven himself to be resilient, surviving bouts with cancer, becoming a heavyweight fighter and an expert in martial arts. He's a pilot, though he hasn't apparently flown in some time. (More later about a little incident in 1997.)
But there are also some things that are a little "odd" about Patrick. Like someone who tilts at windmills but can't even get that right. His "jihad" against the "Sith Lords" (his words, not mine) that he claims are ruining Overstock.com seems more than a little off the charts.
And, his relationship to a Col. Bo Gritz seems a little strange, too. Gritz recounts his relationship with a young Patrick Byrne in China. Seems Gritz used Patrick as an "agent" in Asia. Young Patrick sought Gritz's counsel, and later Gritz claims to have helped Patrick attain a "miraculous" recovery from his cancer. You can read Gritz's claims here, once you get past some of the religious verbiage and the rants about Ruby Ridge.
Some of these references are Patrick's early years. We will continue to explore his relationships to people, and we will see if we can figure out who - besides Patrick Byrne - is funding PCE.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Still on the voucher money trail
Finding out how much money is being spent on this voucher campaign won't come until the end of the month when reports are due. Once again, Parents for Choice in Education (PCE) likely will complain about the money that Utah teachers, and teachers around the country, are putting into the opposition to Referendum 1.
And I will bet anyone in Utah $1 that the PCE finance report again shows that the majority of its expendable funds were donated by the "PCE Foundation" and "PCE, Inc." Both those entities clearly were created to obfuscate the REAL donors to the pro-voucher side. Neither foundations nor corporations making political expenditures are required by Utah law to reveal their donors.
It could well be that the All Children Matter operation out of Michigan is still funding PCE. Likely, even. But, since the ACM operation in Michigan is a corporation too, it can donate to its heart's content to the "PCE Foundation" and "PCE, Inc." and never leave a trace.
Or, it could be that ACM has its hands full right now. It got a little too clever when operating in Wisconsin in 2006 where the organization was found guilty of violating campaign finance laws. (You can read about it here if interested.)
Now, ACM's mother operation faces similar election law violations in Ohio where the Secretary of State is challenging ACM's convulted money laundering operation. (And, if you're interested in Ohio, you can read about ACM's troubles here.)
But then we just don't know if ACM's multi-millionaire donors are funding the pro-voucher effort in Utah. We do know at least one Utahn, Patrick Byrne, is investing some of his considerable fortune into PCE and its operations.
Mr. Byrne will be worth looking at and I relish the opportunity. Stay tuned!
P.S. If the Friedman Foundation also is expending money to persuade reluctant Utahns to support vouchers, does it have to register as a PIC? Glen Warchol noted this in today's Salt Lake City Tribune:
"The voucher discussion began with a slick promotional film, paid for by the Milton Friedman Foundation, that presented the voucher program as necessary to prepare Utah for an expected onslaught of 155,000 new students over the next five years."
And I will bet anyone in Utah $1 that the PCE finance report again shows that the majority of its expendable funds were donated by the "PCE Foundation" and "PCE, Inc." Both those entities clearly were created to obfuscate the REAL donors to the pro-voucher side. Neither foundations nor corporations making political expenditures are required by Utah law to reveal their donors.
It could well be that the All Children Matter operation out of Michigan is still funding PCE. Likely, even. But, since the ACM operation in Michigan is a corporation too, it can donate to its heart's content to the "PCE Foundation" and "PCE, Inc." and never leave a trace.
Or, it could be that ACM has its hands full right now. It got a little too clever when operating in Wisconsin in 2006 where the organization was found guilty of violating campaign finance laws. (You can read about it here if interested.)
Now, ACM's mother operation faces similar election law violations in Ohio where the Secretary of State is challenging ACM's convulted money laundering operation. (And, if you're interested in Ohio, you can read about ACM's troubles here.)
But then we just don't know if ACM's multi-millionaire donors are funding the pro-voucher effort in Utah. We do know at least one Utahn, Patrick Byrne, is investing some of his considerable fortune into PCE and its operations.
Mr. Byrne will be worth looking at and I relish the opportunity. Stay tuned!
P.S. If the Friedman Foundation also is expending money to persuade reluctant Utahns to support vouchers, does it have to register as a PIC? Glen Warchol noted this in today's Salt Lake City Tribune:
"The voucher discussion began with a slick promotional film, paid for by the Milton Friedman Foundation, that presented the voucher program as necessary to prepare Utah for an expected onslaught of 155,000 new students over the next five years."
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Vouchers fail -- observations from one who knows
The Sutherland Institute issued a news release today about another so-called "study" they've done on the "virtue of vouchers" (see the release here; it explains the "research" although no research paper is pro-offered).
Said "research" supposedly shows that voucher schools do a better job for "those who need vouchers the most." (i.e. supposedly a reference to low-income, mostly minority children)
(BTW: I am sure that Sutherland didn't expend any money doing the "research" or promoting the "research". If they had, they should register as a PIC.)
At the same time, a heartfelt and compelling column appeared in the Madison, WI Capital Times. The Milwaukee, WI program is one that Sutherland glows about, but one that a watchful Wisconsin resident believes is an utter failure.
Joel McNally, weekly columnist, decries the fact that in Wisconsin the achievement gap between African-American students and white students is wider than any other state in the nation. He is bothered by the test results and puts the blame squarely on....vouchers.
"If any political leaders really cared, they would advocate pulling the plug on a 17-year failed experiment that appears to be doing more harm than good, producing the lowest reading scores in the nation.
"Then we could put those millions of dollars into Wisconsin public school classrooms, where they are desperately needed to teach the overwhelming majority of black students how to read."
You can read his full column here.
Said "research" supposedly shows that voucher schools do a better job for "those who need vouchers the most." (i.e. supposedly a reference to low-income, mostly minority children)
(BTW: I am sure that Sutherland didn't expend any money doing the "research" or promoting the "research". If they had, they should register as a PIC.)
At the same time, a heartfelt and compelling column appeared in the Madison, WI Capital Times. The Milwaukee, WI program is one that Sutherland glows about, but one that a watchful Wisconsin resident believes is an utter failure.
Joel McNally, weekly columnist, decries the fact that in Wisconsin the achievement gap between African-American students and white students is wider than any other state in the nation. He is bothered by the test results and puts the blame squarely on....vouchers.
"If any political leaders really cared, they would advocate pulling the plug on a 17-year failed experiment that appears to be doing more harm than good, producing the lowest reading scores in the nation.
"Then we could put those millions of dollars into Wisconsin public school classrooms, where they are desperately needed to teach the overwhelming majority of black students how to read."
You can read his full column here.
Monday, October 8, 2007
Going after parents?
Not content with attacking Utah's public school teachers, voucher supporters now are turning their sights on Utah's parents!
Paul Rolly reported in today's Salt Lake City Tribune that:
"After receiving a number of complaints, the Utah Lieutenant Governor's Office says it is investigating whether the state PTA should register as a Political Issues Committee (PIC) because it apparently is spending money to defeat the voucher law in the November referendum. We're not sure whether the complainants are the same folks who refuse to reveal who is spending money for pro-voucher radio ads."
(BTW: Did that issue with the anonymous client of Crowell Advertising who paid for those radio ads ever get resolved? If so, I didn't see it, so please let me know.)
Parents, especially parents who belong to and lead the PTA, are the most unlikely targets for the continued intimidation tactics of the pro-voucher crowd. I'm not sure who is advising PCE and its friends, but their tactics are crude, ugly and totally unnecessary. Parents and teachers have just as much a right to speak out as say, Paul Mero at the Sutherland Institute does.
Wait! I am sure that with all the flacking that the Sutherland Institute has been doing on the pro voucher side they certainly are registered as a Political Issues Committee (PIC).
After all, the Lt. Governor's site lists this definition of a PIC:
"Political Issues Committees (Utah Code 20A-11-101)
"A Political Issue Committee is an entity, or any group of individuals or entities within or outside this state, that solicits or receives donations from any other person, group, or entity or makes disbursements to influence, or to intend to influence, directly or indirectly, any person to assist in placing a statewide ballot proposition on the ballot, assist in keeping a statewide ballot proposition off the ballot, or refrain from voting or vote for or vote against any statewide ballot proposition; or sign or refuse to sign an incorporation petition or refrain from voting, vote for, or vote against any proposed incorporation in an incorporation election."
Hasn't Sutherland made "disbursements" (i.e. spent money) to try and influence the outcome of Referendum 1? Isn't Paul Mero unabashedly pro-voucher? Haven't all of Sutherland's so-called "research" papers and news releases made private school vouchers sound better than sliced bread?
Then, surely they must be registered as a PIC!
Alas, no. No sign of the Sutherland Institute in the list of PICs. You can check the list here.
Wonder why not???
Paul Rolly reported in today's Salt Lake City Tribune that:
"After receiving a number of complaints, the Utah Lieutenant Governor's Office says it is investigating whether the state PTA should register as a Political Issues Committee (PIC) because it apparently is spending money to defeat the voucher law in the November referendum. We're not sure whether the complainants are the same folks who refuse to reveal who is spending money for pro-voucher radio ads."
(BTW: Did that issue with the anonymous client of Crowell Advertising who paid for those radio ads ever get resolved? If so, I didn't see it, so please let me know.)
Parents, especially parents who belong to and lead the PTA, are the most unlikely targets for the continued intimidation tactics of the pro-voucher crowd. I'm not sure who is advising PCE and its friends, but their tactics are crude, ugly and totally unnecessary. Parents and teachers have just as much a right to speak out as say, Paul Mero at the Sutherland Institute does.
Wait! I am sure that with all the flacking that the Sutherland Institute has been doing on the pro voucher side they certainly are registered as a Political Issues Committee (PIC).
After all, the Lt. Governor's site lists this definition of a PIC:
"Political Issues Committees (Utah Code 20A-11-101)
"A Political Issue Committee is an entity, or any group of individuals or entities within or outside this state, that solicits or receives donations from any other person, group, or entity or makes disbursements to influence, or to intend to influence, directly or indirectly, any person to assist in placing a statewide ballot proposition on the ballot, assist in keeping a statewide ballot proposition off the ballot, or refrain from voting or vote for or vote against any statewide ballot proposition; or sign or refuse to sign an incorporation petition or refrain from voting, vote for, or vote against any proposed incorporation in an incorporation election."
Hasn't Sutherland made "disbursements" (i.e. spent money) to try and influence the outcome of Referendum 1? Isn't Paul Mero unabashedly pro-voucher? Haven't all of Sutherland's so-called "research" papers and news releases made private school vouchers sound better than sliced bread?
Then, surely they must be registered as a PIC!
Alas, no. No sign of the Sutherland Institute in the list of PICs. You can check the list here.
Wonder why not???
Friday, October 5, 2007
More on voucher spam
(Thisi s a re-post. On the kind advice of some readers, I am editing the address of the probable spammer.)
In yesterday's post I speculated that Mark Towner of "The Political Spyglass" blog might have been the person who sent the deceptive e-mail (SPAM) from Utahns for Public School (singular). The public education coalition opposing private school vouchers is Utahns for Public Schools (plural).
I noted that the spam e-mail redirected to a site that Towner was accused of using before to send unauthorized and unsolicited spam to thousands of Utahns. (Thanks to Jesse for documenting this spam.)
Seems to have stirred some folks, particularly Towner.
Despite his fairly incriminating history, Towner huffily protested his innocence in his blog:
“No email was sent by http://www.thespyglass.us/ The site is parked and has been inactive for weeks.” - The Political Spyglass here.
Eh? Inactive for WEEKS?!? Hmmm.
Well, here is a copy below wherein Utahns for Public School (singular) is linked to The Spyglass:
Index of /thespyglass
Name Last modified Size Description
________________________________________
Parent Directory 03-Oct-2007 18:44 -
prepare_removal.php 13-Sep-2007 00:38 2k
________________________________________
Apache/1.3.37 Server at www.utahnsforpublicschool.com Port 80
Note that the last modification of the parent directory happens to occur on the same day the Deseret News broke the "deceptive e-mail" story. Hmmm. Coincidence?
(Check it out here.)
Towner also takes offense that we didn't KNOW he was the poster at "vouchernews" blog (under the juvenile pseudonym "Jason Bourne"). HUH? I've been reading the Spyglass for quite some time now. I didn't know.
"...I indicated that I created the site some time ago to focus on the voucher battle, so the spyglass can continue posting about other events..." - The Political Spyglass 10/5/07.
So, this morning I went back as far as June and July. Never read ANY mention from Towner that he also was behind vouchernews blog! (Unless he backtracked and added that somewhere this morning).
Oh, wait. Now Towner posts on Utah Amicus that he is NOT "Jason Bourne" yet in his own blog Towner admits to running the vouchernews blog? Whew.
Following a hunch, I also went back to the Parents for Choice in Education PIC filing with the Lt. Governor's office, just to see who the group had paid for what services.
Well, well. Here's a link (pdf format) to the report.
Wonder what entity is "SG Consulting" at 1**1 G***n St. that received $5,000 from the PCE PIC on September 4? Hmmm.
SG Consulting - could that be Spy Glass? 1**1 G***n St.? Could that be Mark Towner's home address?
Was Mark Towner paid to spam?
In yesterday's post I speculated that Mark Towner of "The Political Spyglass" blog might have been the person who sent the deceptive e-mail (SPAM) from Utahns for Public School (singular). The public education coalition opposing private school vouchers is Utahns for Public Schools (plural).
I noted that the spam e-mail redirected to a site that Towner was accused of using before to send unauthorized and unsolicited spam to thousands of Utahns. (Thanks to Jesse for documenting this spam.)
Seems to have stirred some folks, particularly Towner.
Despite his fairly incriminating history, Towner huffily protested his innocence in his blog:
“No email was sent by http://www.thespyglass.us/ The site is parked and has been inactive for weeks.” - The Political Spyglass here.
Eh? Inactive for WEEKS?!? Hmmm.
Well, here is a copy below wherein Utahns for Public School (singular) is linked to The Spyglass:
Index of /thespyglass
Name Last modified Size Description
________________________________________
Parent Directory 03-Oct-2007 18:44 -
prepare_removal.php 13-Sep-2007 00:38 2k
________________________________________
Apache/1.3.37 Server at www.utahnsforpublicschool.com Port 80
Note that the last modification of the parent directory happens to occur on the same day the Deseret News broke the "deceptive e-mail" story. Hmmm. Coincidence?
(Check it out here.)
Towner also takes offense that we didn't KNOW he was the poster at "vouchernews" blog (under the juvenile pseudonym "Jason Bourne"). HUH? I've been reading the Spyglass for quite some time now. I didn't know.
"...I indicated that I created the site some time ago to focus on the voucher battle, so the spyglass can continue posting about other events..." - The Political Spyglass 10/5/07.
So, this morning I went back as far as June and July. Never read ANY mention from Towner that he also was behind vouchernews blog! (Unless he backtracked and added that somewhere this morning).
Oh, wait. Now Towner posts on Utah Amicus that he is NOT "Jason Bourne" yet in his own blog Towner admits to running the vouchernews blog? Whew.
Following a hunch, I also went back to the Parents for Choice in Education PIC filing with the Lt. Governor's office, just to see who the group had paid for what services.
Well, well. Here's a link (pdf format) to the report.
Wonder what entity is "SG Consulting" at 1**1 G***n St. that received $5,000 from the PCE PIC on September 4? Hmmm.
SG Consulting - could that be Spy Glass? 1**1 G***n St.? Could that be Mark Towner's home address?
Was Mark Towner paid to spam?
Thursday, October 4, 2007
Who is spamming? Could it be....
Democracy for Utah wrote about this morning's Deseret News story regarding spam e-mails that appeared to come from Utahns for Public Schools, the folks working against Utah's universal private school voucher program.
It's an interesting story, with apparently more "dirty tricks" from the pro-voucher folks, although this time Parents for Choice in Education claims they don't have a clue as to the identity of the spammer.
The Deseret News story also went on:
"Lisa Johnson, spokeswoman for Utahns for Public Schools, said in addition to Wilson, the coalition received a number of calls and e-mails from others who got the "deceptive" e-mail and requested clarification."
"It was clearly intended to look like it came from us," Johnson said. "The one thing we can say for certain that it didn't come from our campaign and it's a concern for coalition members because someone purports to be speaking for us."
"Johnson said her group is trying to find out who is behind the Web site and the mass e-mailing while looking into options of what sort of complaints can be filed against that person."
Certainly spam constitutes a "dirty trick". Especially when it is specifically designed to look like it is from a group that it's NOT from. A clever use of words made the difference. The e-mail was from Utahns for Public School (singular) while the public education coalition's name is Utahns for Public Schools (plural).
Now, hmmm. Anyone know anyone in Utah who is a spammer? Ever been accused of spam?
Well, there is a clue in the Deseret News, when it reported this about the deceptive e-mail:
"It asked recipients to provide a personal e-mail address, name and contact number and then visit another Web site..."
A friend of mine far more sopisticated at the technology end of the Internet found that Utahns for Public School (singular) - host of the offensive, deceptive e-mail -redirects to a site called www.thespyglass.us/.
Now, who else do we know who might be using or have used spyglass.us for other purposes?
Well, it seems Mark Towner used that site to send spam! And, he got caught, as these folks report.
And isn't Towner's blog called something like "The Political SPYGLASS"??
As Bob Aagard noted this morning, seems the pro-voucher folks will take anyone they can get -- dirty tricks and all.
It's an interesting story, with apparently more "dirty tricks" from the pro-voucher folks, although this time Parents for Choice in Education claims they don't have a clue as to the identity of the spammer.
The Deseret News story also went on:
"Lisa Johnson, spokeswoman for Utahns for Public Schools, said in addition to Wilson, the coalition received a number of calls and e-mails from others who got the "deceptive" e-mail and requested clarification."
"It was clearly intended to look like it came from us," Johnson said. "The one thing we can say for certain that it didn't come from our campaign and it's a concern for coalition members because someone purports to be speaking for us."
"Johnson said her group is trying to find out who is behind the Web site and the mass e-mailing while looking into options of what sort of complaints can be filed against that person."
Certainly spam constitutes a "dirty trick". Especially when it is specifically designed to look like it is from a group that it's NOT from. A clever use of words made the difference. The e-mail was from Utahns for Public School (singular) while the public education coalition's name is Utahns for Public Schools (plural).
Now, hmmm. Anyone know anyone in Utah who is a spammer? Ever been accused of spam?
Well, there is a clue in the Deseret News, when it reported this about the deceptive e-mail:
"It asked recipients to provide a personal e-mail address, name and contact number and then visit another Web site..."
A friend of mine far more sopisticated at the technology end of the Internet found that Utahns for Public School (singular) - host of the offensive, deceptive e-mail -redirects to a site called www.thespyglass.us/.
Now, who else do we know who might be using or have used spyglass.us for other purposes?
Well, it seems Mark Towner used that site to send spam! And, he got caught, as these folks report.
And isn't Towner's blog called something like "The Political SPYGLASS"??
As Bob Aagard noted this morning, seems the pro-voucher folks will take anyone they can get -- dirty tricks and all.
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Out of state friend? Dick Morris? In Utah?
Paul Rolly's notes in the Salt Lake City Tribune caught my eye this morning, particularly this piece:
"Consulting the guru: Dick Morris, the former political adviser to President Clinton who resigned in the 1990s amid a call-girl and toe-sucking scandal, subsequently repented his wayward ways, including being a Clinton supporter. Now a regular Sean Hannity buddy on Fox News, he's joined Utah's voucher fight.
Morris contacted the pro-voucher Parents for Choice in Education recently and offered his expertise in campaign strategies, said PCE's Joe Hunter. He said Morris is not a full-time consultant, but lent his counsel to the campaign several days ago. Hunter said he doesn't know how much Morris was paid, but doubted it was much."
Well, so Dick Morris, the big-wig consultant wants to be on the Parents for Choice in Education (PCE) payroll? Interesting.
Morris gets paid between $20,000 and $25,000 for each speaking engagement, so tapping him to help the pro-private school voucher effort would cost a pretty penny.
But then PCE's funders(we still don't know who they are) may think Morris can help them win this campaign. Did they tell the Utah pro-voucher folks to retain him?
Still, don't look for Dick to spend too much time in Utah. Morris is speaking to a Republican group in Winston-Salem, NC on October 22. Oh and tickets to the event are only $25, so let's hope they have room for a big crowd.
Maybe it's that Morris really needs work. After all, it seems he owes the state of Connecticut some $280,000 in unpaid taxes, as reported by WTNH-TV of Hartford, CT.
Or perhaps it's that Morris needs to "buff" his reputation. You note that Rolly's piece referenced a "scandal" that Morris got caught up in.
Indeed. We're not just talking about a call-girl and toe-sucking situation. We're talking about Dick Morris, consultant, who let the prostitute he was cavorting with listen in to conversations with the President. You can read the full story here. Now, really, what kind of judgement does the man have?
Oh, wait, he says he has "reformed." OK, then maybe it won't be true that his phone number is in Deborah Jean Palfrey's telephone logs as reported here. Deborah Jean is the "DC Madam" who claims she supplied women for many powerful men in Washington, D.C.
But if Morris has reformed, and is the consultant that PCE's shadowy funders support, then maybe he can help their campaign.
Then again, maybe not. See what even his "friends" say about Morris' record:
"FOX News Managing Editor and Chief Washington Correspondent Brit Hume, anchor of Special Report with Brit Hume, has said of Dick Morris -- the onetime adviser to Bill Clinton turned FOX News Channel contributor -- "[S]ometimes he says things that you think are inspired from another planet. ... If you're a political analyst, being wrong is a drawback." Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics, has said, "He's frequently wrong." And a Boston Globe review of Morris's 1999 book, The New Prince: Machiavelli Updated for the Twenty-First Century, noted that "Morris's contradictions and factual errors too often make a hash of what is supposed to be his argument." [USA Today, 8/16/00; The Boston Globe, 7/20/99]
Maybe that's a little harsh. Morris did, after all, predict that Newt Gingrich would enter the 2008 presidential race.
"Consulting the guru: Dick Morris, the former political adviser to President Clinton who resigned in the 1990s amid a call-girl and toe-sucking scandal, subsequently repented his wayward ways, including being a Clinton supporter. Now a regular Sean Hannity buddy on Fox News, he's joined Utah's voucher fight.
Morris contacted the pro-voucher Parents for Choice in Education recently and offered his expertise in campaign strategies, said PCE's Joe Hunter. He said Morris is not a full-time consultant, but lent his counsel to the campaign several days ago. Hunter said he doesn't know how much Morris was paid, but doubted it was much."
Well, so Dick Morris, the big-wig consultant wants to be on the Parents for Choice in Education (PCE) payroll? Interesting.
Morris gets paid between $20,000 and $25,000 for each speaking engagement, so tapping him to help the pro-private school voucher effort would cost a pretty penny.
But then PCE's funders(we still don't know who they are) may think Morris can help them win this campaign. Did they tell the Utah pro-voucher folks to retain him?
Still, don't look for Dick to spend too much time in Utah. Morris is speaking to a Republican group in Winston-Salem, NC on October 22. Oh and tickets to the event are only $25, so let's hope they have room for a big crowd.
Maybe it's that Morris really needs work. After all, it seems he owes the state of Connecticut some $280,000 in unpaid taxes, as reported by WTNH-TV of Hartford, CT.
Or perhaps it's that Morris needs to "buff" his reputation. You note that Rolly's piece referenced a "scandal" that Morris got caught up in.
Indeed. We're not just talking about a call-girl and toe-sucking situation. We're talking about Dick Morris, consultant, who let the prostitute he was cavorting with listen in to conversations with the President. You can read the full story here. Now, really, what kind of judgement does the man have?
Oh, wait, he says he has "reformed." OK, then maybe it won't be true that his phone number is in Deborah Jean Palfrey's telephone logs as reported here. Deborah Jean is the "DC Madam" who claims she supplied women for many powerful men in Washington, D.C.
But if Morris has reformed, and is the consultant that PCE's shadowy funders support, then maybe he can help their campaign.
Then again, maybe not. See what even his "friends" say about Morris' record:
"FOX News Managing Editor and Chief Washington Correspondent Brit Hume, anchor of Special Report with Brit Hume, has said of Dick Morris -- the onetime adviser to Bill Clinton turned FOX News Channel contributor -- "[S]ometimes he says things that you think are inspired from another planet. ... If you're a political analyst, being wrong is a drawback." Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics, has said, "He's frequently wrong." And a Boston Globe review of Morris's 1999 book, The New Prince: Machiavelli Updated for the Twenty-First Century, noted that "Morris's contradictions and factual errors too often make a hash of what is supposed to be his argument." [USA Today, 8/16/00; The Boston Globe, 7/20/99]
Maybe that's a little harsh. Morris did, after all, predict that Newt Gingrich would enter the 2008 presidential race.
Vouchers create no value
Despite claims from pro-private school voucher advocates, a new study of the Milwaukee voucher program confirms what many previous studies have shown: Students who use vouchers to attend private schools do not show significant increases in academic achievement.
Nor, as the new Economic Policy Institute study reveals, do vouchers create a climate of "competition" that improves public schools.
Today's Salt Lake City Tribune story can be found here, and directly refutes Parents for Choice in Education's (PCE) claim that vouchers will create "competition" that will make Utah's public schools better.
In fact, the only thing Utah's private school voucher system will do is increase what taxpayers pay for education because they'll be called upon to fund two systems - one public and one private.
This sets up a situation where money that could be used for our PUBLIC schools will be diverted to unaccountable private voucher schools.
As the leader of the teachers' association in Milwaukee stated:
"The only competition that we've really seen between public schools and voucher schools in Milwaukee has been competition for resources," said Dennis Oulahan, Milwaukee Teachers' Education Association president. "Public schools lost big time."
About the only thing pro-private school voucher folks can say about this and other studies is: Vouchers don't seem to "hurt" public schools.
Well, yes they do! Vouchers for private schools drain precious resources away from public schools - resources that could be used for textbooks, supplies, teacher aides, and teacher training.
This research isn't the only report verifying that students achieve as well in public schools as they do in private ones. The pro-voucher U.S. Department of Education quietly released a study last summer that came to the same conclusion after examining student performance over time. You can download and read the entire study here (pdf format).
So if Utah's proposed private school vouchers won't help students achieve more but will drain resources from public schools and cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, why have private school vouchers at all??
Nor, as the new Economic Policy Institute study reveals, do vouchers create a climate of "competition" that improves public schools.
Today's Salt Lake City Tribune story can be found here, and directly refutes Parents for Choice in Education's (PCE) claim that vouchers will create "competition" that will make Utah's public schools better.
In fact, the only thing Utah's private school voucher system will do is increase what taxpayers pay for education because they'll be called upon to fund two systems - one public and one private.
This sets up a situation where money that could be used for our PUBLIC schools will be diverted to unaccountable private voucher schools.
As the leader of the teachers' association in Milwaukee stated:
"The only competition that we've really seen between public schools and voucher schools in Milwaukee has been competition for resources," said Dennis Oulahan, Milwaukee Teachers' Education Association president. "Public schools lost big time."
About the only thing pro-private school voucher folks can say about this and other studies is: Vouchers don't seem to "hurt" public schools.
Well, yes they do! Vouchers for private schools drain precious resources away from public schools - resources that could be used for textbooks, supplies, teacher aides, and teacher training.
This research isn't the only report verifying that students achieve as well in public schools as they do in private ones. The pro-voucher U.S. Department of Education quietly released a study last summer that came to the same conclusion after examining student performance over time. You can download and read the entire study here (pdf format).
So if Utah's proposed private school vouchers won't help students achieve more but will drain resources from public schools and cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, why have private school vouchers at all??
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Watch the money go 'round and 'round
From my post earlier today (Show me the money - see below), there were several folks named in the LA Times story who didn't seem to have a close connection to California or the now-defunct ballot initiative that would have divided the electoral college votes of that electoral college vote-rich state. (There is a link to the full story in my post below.)
You may recall that with the California effort on the outs, spokespeople indicated the money was going to be re-directed to the Utah voucher campaign. In fact it was this in the original story that first caught my eye:
"Wilcox said the group was planning to donate to other conservative causes around the country, including one in Utah to create school vouchers."
One oddity from that news story that seemed really out of place was the Missouri attorney, Charles Hurth III who appears to be the conduit for the "large donor" who gave to the defunct ballot effort. Hurth lives and works in a small town in Missouri so it puzzles me why he would get involved in such an initiative so far away.
Missouri is, after all, a ballot initiative state much like Utah, so why would Hurth be so interested in an electoral college initiative only in California? Why not Missouri?
And, what else has Hurth been involved in?
Well, heavens be. I did a little research and found Hurth's name attached to the so-called "First Class Education" effort bankrolled by Utah's Patrick Byrne, the mercurial CEO of Overstock.com and funder of the Utah legislators' pro-private school voucher political issues committee (PIC) and major donor to PCE.
You can see some of the ties here and here as reported by San Francisco and national reporters.
Not only was the "First Class Education" effort by Byrne an utter failure, he wasted more than $1 million trying to foist it on states only to find that it cratered in every place where it was brought up -- including Utah and Missouri. You can read all about Byrne's mis-steps and mis-guided education reform package here.
SO, if the California money is to be re-directed to Utah, will that money be Hurth's? Or Byrne's, re-routed through Missouri and California? Or some other shadowy Libertarian who shuns the spotlight?
Byrne admits to being a Libertarian. Or at least he did here when he was in Florida (nice place to be in winter) flacking for his so-called education "reform". And that brings me back to speculating that Libertarians are funding PCE. They certainly were vocal last week in their support for vouchers, even if their logic was a little convoluted.
But until the donor or donors come forward big questions remain: Who is funding PCE? And, why don't they want to tell us?
If it is just Byrne, why doesn't he tell us? If it is Byrne, Hurth, Howie Rich from New York City, and other like-minded Libertarians, why aren't they proud of what they are doing?
Doesn't anyone supporting vouchers have enough conviction in the issue to say he/she/they are willing to put their funds where their convictions are??
You may recall that with the California effort on the outs, spokespeople indicated the money was going to be re-directed to the Utah voucher campaign. In fact it was this in the original story that first caught my eye:
"Wilcox said the group was planning to donate to other conservative causes around the country, including one in Utah to create school vouchers."
One oddity from that news story that seemed really out of place was the Missouri attorney, Charles Hurth III who appears to be the conduit for the "large donor" who gave to the defunct ballot effort. Hurth lives and works in a small town in Missouri so it puzzles me why he would get involved in such an initiative so far away.
Missouri is, after all, a ballot initiative state much like Utah, so why would Hurth be so interested in an electoral college initiative only in California? Why not Missouri?
And, what else has Hurth been involved in?
Well, heavens be. I did a little research and found Hurth's name attached to the so-called "First Class Education" effort bankrolled by Utah's Patrick Byrne, the mercurial CEO of Overstock.com and funder of the Utah legislators' pro-private school voucher political issues committee (PIC) and major donor to PCE.
You can see some of the ties here and here as reported by San Francisco and national reporters.
Not only was the "First Class Education" effort by Byrne an utter failure, he wasted more than $1 million trying to foist it on states only to find that it cratered in every place where it was brought up -- including Utah and Missouri. You can read all about Byrne's mis-steps and mis-guided education reform package here.
SO, if the California money is to be re-directed to Utah, will that money be Hurth's? Or Byrne's, re-routed through Missouri and California? Or some other shadowy Libertarian who shuns the spotlight?
Byrne admits to being a Libertarian. Or at least he did here when he was in Florida (nice place to be in winter) flacking for his so-called education "reform". And that brings me back to speculating that Libertarians are funding PCE. They certainly were vocal last week in their support for vouchers, even if their logic was a little convoluted.
But until the donor or donors come forward big questions remain: Who is funding PCE? And, why don't they want to tell us?
If it is just Byrne, why doesn't he tell us? If it is Byrne, Hurth, Howie Rich from New York City, and other like-minded Libertarians, why aren't they proud of what they are doing?
Doesn't anyone supporting vouchers have enough conviction in the issue to say he/she/they are willing to put their funds where their convictions are??
Show me the money
"Wilcox said the group was planning to donate to other conservative causes around the country, including one in Utah to create school vouchers."
That sentence from an article in the Los Angeles Times the other day caught my eye. The article itself was about a California ballot initiative effort that was folding due to lack of interest and financial support. Apparently the issue - to divide that state's electoral college votes by Congressional district - attracted only one large donor.
Of course, in keeping with the same loyalty to secrecy that Utah's Parents for Choice in Education has, the California ballot organizers would not say who the one large donor was. You can read the entire article here.
Secrecy aside, this reference to the movement of pro-voucher money into Utah isn't surprising. We should expect to see money move into the state. But, as I've said before, we know where the money is coming from for the Against Referendum 1 side. It is coming from Utah public school teachers and teachers across the nation.
What is so puzzling is why PCE and the pro-voucher groups are so reluctant to say who is donating to them.
Who contributed the $270,000 that the PCE Foundation and PCE, Inc. "donated" to the PCE political action committee, as reported in this Deseret News article?
It's obvious that PCE will be increasing its spending. They won't have far to go to raise money (I'll explain below). Even PCE spokesperson Leah Barker admitted they would be bringing in out-of-state organizers, and hiring an out-of-state consulting firm.
There is a "call" on this weblog for young people telling them they can earn $6,000 in Utah to work to try and pass the private school voucher law. Additionally, they get money for meals - and their transportation is paid! These out of state PCE "helpers" will expect to get their money, as will the blogger who wrote that he would land in Utah on September 30 (today). Bob Aagard has some information on the out-of-state blogger here.
So if we know that PCE is spending money on organizers, as well as on TV advertising, and we know some shadowy donor will no longer be funding a ballot issue in California but will be sending money to Utah, who is that donor? Or, is it a group of donors?
Hard to say. That is, until PCE comes clean and tells us who is funding their effort.
Of course, there is always an opportunity to speculate on where or who the money is coming from.
Here I found a list of the Top Ten donors to school voucher programs. They include the funders I wrote about before - Tim Draper from California and Dick DeVos from Michgan. Also included on this list is the Walton Family Foundation. (Did you know your Wal-Mart purchases helped fund the pro-voucher movement? I didn't!) Apparently there also are a few other deep-pocketed pro-voucher gurus from states as far from Utah as New Jersey, Wisconsin, and Texas.
Interestingly, these same names of individuals and foundations appear on the list of donors to the so-called "Alliance for School Choice." It's the "Alliance for School Choice" that founded the "All Children Matter" pro-voucher PAC that bases its operations in Virginia (where there are no limits on campaign donations) and Michigan.
And, it's that very same "All Children Matter" PAC that spent so much money on state legislative races in Utah and elsewhere as reported by Brock Vergakis of the Associated Press here.
Or is PCE being funded by rich Libertarians? The 2006 property rights and tax cap issues on the ballot from Maine to Idaho to California and Arizona were funded by one wealthy donor, Howie Rich from New York City. You can learn all about Howie and his causes here where there is a blow-by-blow analysis of Howie's failed efforts last year.
But, another one of Howie Rich from New York City's causes is private school vouchers, as he heads another pro-voucher front group "Parents in Charge" Foundation, or Inc. or LEAD - whichever name he's calling it today.
Howie Rich from New York City has single handedly been funding a private school voucher scheme in South Carolina, as reported by this Daily Kos weblog. (Well, actually, according to that reporter, Howie was trying to buy the whole STATE of South Carolina. Frightening, but true.)
So, is Howie Rich from New York City funding the Utah private voucher school effort? After all, Howie Rich spent from $9 to $11 MILLION on the failed tax cap measures alone.
Since Howie is a rich and devoted Libertarian, it could be him. The Utah Libertarian Party issued a release last week encouraging support for an unaccountable private school voucher program. In it they wrote:
"Allowing parents to use some of the wealth extorted from taxpayers to place their children in voluntarily-attended learning environments will help decentralize the dangerous, gun-run school system..."
"Wealth extorted from taxpayers"? "The dangerous gun-run school system"? I think they are alluding to Utah's system of public schools, but I can't be sure.
Of course, the Libertarian Party is given to extremes. Party members are so committed to supporting the individual over government that they support legalizing drugs and prostitution, and even call for the repeal of laws and amendments that ban gay marriage. Lest you think I jest, you can find the Libertarian Party platform here.
Now, if the good folks at PCE want to run from the tenants of the Libertarian Party, including its devotion to legal drugs, legal prostitution, and gay marriage, then that is fine. Understandable, even.
Just tell us who your donors really are. Inquiring minds want to know.
That sentence from an article in the Los Angeles Times the other day caught my eye. The article itself was about a California ballot initiative effort that was folding due to lack of interest and financial support. Apparently the issue - to divide that state's electoral college votes by Congressional district - attracted only one large donor.
Of course, in keeping with the same loyalty to secrecy that Utah's Parents for Choice in Education has, the California ballot organizers would not say who the one large donor was. You can read the entire article here.
Secrecy aside, this reference to the movement of pro-voucher money into Utah isn't surprising. We should expect to see money move into the state. But, as I've said before, we know where the money is coming from for the Against Referendum 1 side. It is coming from Utah public school teachers and teachers across the nation.
What is so puzzling is why PCE and the pro-voucher groups are so reluctant to say who is donating to them.
Who contributed the $270,000 that the PCE Foundation and PCE, Inc. "donated" to the PCE political action committee, as reported in this Deseret News article?
It's obvious that PCE will be increasing its spending. They won't have far to go to raise money (I'll explain below). Even PCE spokesperson Leah Barker admitted they would be bringing in out-of-state organizers, and hiring an out-of-state consulting firm.
There is a "call" on this weblog for young people telling them they can earn $6,000 in Utah to work to try and pass the private school voucher law. Additionally, they get money for meals - and their transportation is paid! These out of state PCE "helpers" will expect to get their money, as will the blogger who wrote that he would land in Utah on September 30 (today). Bob Aagard has some information on the out-of-state blogger here.
So if we know that PCE is spending money on organizers, as well as on TV advertising, and we know some shadowy donor will no longer be funding a ballot issue in California but will be sending money to Utah, who is that donor? Or, is it a group of donors?
Hard to say. That is, until PCE comes clean and tells us who is funding their effort.
Of course, there is always an opportunity to speculate on where or who the money is coming from.
Here I found a list of the Top Ten donors to school voucher programs. They include the funders I wrote about before - Tim Draper from California and Dick DeVos from Michgan. Also included on this list is the Walton Family Foundation. (Did you know your Wal-Mart purchases helped fund the pro-voucher movement? I didn't!) Apparently there also are a few other deep-pocketed pro-voucher gurus from states as far from Utah as New Jersey, Wisconsin, and Texas.
Interestingly, these same names of individuals and foundations appear on the list of donors to the so-called "Alliance for School Choice." It's the "Alliance for School Choice" that founded the "All Children Matter" pro-voucher PAC that bases its operations in Virginia (where there are no limits on campaign donations) and Michigan.
And, it's that very same "All Children Matter" PAC that spent so much money on state legislative races in Utah and elsewhere as reported by Brock Vergakis of the Associated Press here.
Or is PCE being funded by rich Libertarians? The 2006 property rights and tax cap issues on the ballot from Maine to Idaho to California and Arizona were funded by one wealthy donor, Howie Rich from New York City. You can learn all about Howie and his causes here where there is a blow-by-blow analysis of Howie's failed efforts last year.
But, another one of Howie Rich from New York City's causes is private school vouchers, as he heads another pro-voucher front group "Parents in Charge" Foundation, or Inc. or LEAD - whichever name he's calling it today.
Howie Rich from New York City has single handedly been funding a private school voucher scheme in South Carolina, as reported by this Daily Kos weblog. (Well, actually, according to that reporter, Howie was trying to buy the whole STATE of South Carolina. Frightening, but true.)
So, is Howie Rich from New York City funding the Utah private voucher school effort? After all, Howie Rich spent from $9 to $11 MILLION on the failed tax cap measures alone.
Since Howie is a rich and devoted Libertarian, it could be him. The Utah Libertarian Party issued a release last week encouraging support for an unaccountable private school voucher program. In it they wrote:
"Allowing parents to use some of the wealth extorted from taxpayers to place their children in voluntarily-attended learning environments will help decentralize the dangerous, gun-run school system..."
"Wealth extorted from taxpayers"? "The dangerous gun-run school system"? I think they are alluding to Utah's system of public schools, but I can't be sure.
Of course, the Libertarian Party is given to extremes. Party members are so committed to supporting the individual over government that they support legalizing drugs and prostitution, and even call for the repeal of laws and amendments that ban gay marriage. Lest you think I jest, you can find the Libertarian Party platform here.
Now, if the good folks at PCE want to run from the tenants of the Libertarian Party, including its devotion to legal drugs, legal prostitution, and gay marriage, then that is fine. Understandable, even.
Just tell us who your donors really are. Inquiring minds want to know.
Friday, September 28, 2007
Follow the money...if you can find it
In this morning's Deseret News, Bob Bernick had an interesting story about the voucher fight. He did a very fair job of reporting on both sides of the issue.
What caught my eye was his reference to where the funds are coming from to fuel this showdown:
"But at least we know that the NEA is doing this, and we have a pretty good idea where its PAC money is coming from — public school teachers across the nation who pay PAC dues into the national education group through their local teacher union chapters.
We don't know where all of the money that Parents for Choice in Education is coming from. As reported in last Sunday's Deseret Morning News, the PCE's own PIC and PAC get some funds from the same group's corporation and nonprofit foundation..."
Precisely. Where is their money coming from? Who is giving to them and funding this effort? If you see my post yesterday this clearly is becoming a stare down between real, public school teachers and some faceless million-billionaires.
Also in yesterday's post, I wrote about Tim Draper from California who put $24 million of his own money into the 2000 voucher effort there, and Dick DeVos who put at least $5 million of his own dough into the pro-private school voucher initiative in his home state of Michigan. Are they funding the Utah effort?
Doing some research has yielded a lot of information about where PCE got its money to fund the state legislative races that eventually led to the flawed voucher bill passing the Utah House by 1 vote. Some of that information can be found on this weblog by Accountability First (I like the name) and it's interesting reading. I recommend it.
I also uncovered some other writings that lead me to believe the pro-voucher side's money might be from Michigan. Seems the "All Children Matter" PAC, headed by DeVos' wife, put a whole lot of money a whole lot of places trying to influence state legislative races, including Utah. If you want more on that, check out this weblog on the national Daily Kos site.
Yesterday, the Evergreen Freedom Foundation (EFF), an extreme right-wing "think tank" bombarded the Utah media with a "guest editorial" attacking teachers for financially contributing to Utah's anti-voucher cause. You can read the rant here.
You know, it was EFF that tried to tie up Washington state teachers in the courts for many years, filing complaint after complaint because the teachers wanted to spend some money on important issues there.
At the same time EFF was railing against the Washington Education Association and its public school teachers, the Foundation itself would NOT say where its funds were from.
What? You mean, it's all right to assault teachers for wanting to have a voice, but you won't confess to which puppeteers are pulling your strings? The height of hypocrisy.
One judge noticed that hypocrisy and rebuked EFF. Washington State Supreme Court Justice Philip A. Talmadge made this withering comment in his May 2000 opinion regarding a case initiated by Evergreen against WEA when he said:
"... We know nothing about the EFF. It chooses to utilize the courts for
what may be a political agenda, and yet we know nothing regarding the
individuals or organizations who make up the EFF or provide financial
support to it. Perhaps a healthy dose of 'public disclosure' so
vigorously sought by these organizations would be usefully applied to
their own activities as well, so the public will know who supports and
funds them when they purport to be acting in the public interest."
Taking a defensive position about its funding when asked AGAIN who was donating to the group, EFF spokesman Jami Lund told the Olympian (a fine newspaper): "But even if we got our money straight from the Communist Party or the Ku Klux Klan, it doesn't mean that the things we are saying aren't true."
So, EFF joins PCE to blast teachers in Utah and around the country for pooling their small contributions to help fight the flawed voucher law that would siphon public taxpayer funds and send those monies to an unaccountable, private school system? Because teachers around the United States believe in their heart of hearts that vouchers are bad?
And yet EFF won't come clean - and PCE won't come clean - about who is funding the pro-voucher effort in Utah? Come on. It's time for them to put up or shut up.
What caught my eye was his reference to where the funds are coming from to fuel this showdown:
"But at least we know that the NEA is doing this, and we have a pretty good idea where its PAC money is coming from — public school teachers across the nation who pay PAC dues into the national education group through their local teacher union chapters.
We don't know where all of the money that Parents for Choice in Education is coming from. As reported in last Sunday's Deseret Morning News, the PCE's own PIC and PAC get some funds from the same group's corporation and nonprofit foundation..."
Precisely. Where is their money coming from? Who is giving to them and funding this effort? If you see my post yesterday this clearly is becoming a stare down between real, public school teachers and some faceless million-billionaires.
Also in yesterday's post, I wrote about Tim Draper from California who put $24 million of his own money into the 2000 voucher effort there, and Dick DeVos who put at least $5 million of his own dough into the pro-private school voucher initiative in his home state of Michigan. Are they funding the Utah effort?
Doing some research has yielded a lot of information about where PCE got its money to fund the state legislative races that eventually led to the flawed voucher bill passing the Utah House by 1 vote. Some of that information can be found on this weblog by Accountability First (I like the name) and it's interesting reading. I recommend it.
I also uncovered some other writings that lead me to believe the pro-voucher side's money might be from Michigan. Seems the "All Children Matter" PAC, headed by DeVos' wife, put a whole lot of money a whole lot of places trying to influence state legislative races, including Utah. If you want more on that, check out this weblog on the national Daily Kos site.
Yesterday, the Evergreen Freedom Foundation (EFF), an extreme right-wing "think tank" bombarded the Utah media with a "guest editorial" attacking teachers for financially contributing to Utah's anti-voucher cause. You can read the rant here.
You know, it was EFF that tried to tie up Washington state teachers in the courts for many years, filing complaint after complaint because the teachers wanted to spend some money on important issues there.
At the same time EFF was railing against the Washington Education Association and its public school teachers, the Foundation itself would NOT say where its funds were from.
What? You mean, it's all right to assault teachers for wanting to have a voice, but you won't confess to which puppeteers are pulling your strings? The height of hypocrisy.
One judge noticed that hypocrisy and rebuked EFF. Washington State Supreme Court Justice Philip A. Talmadge made this withering comment in his May 2000 opinion regarding a case initiated by Evergreen against WEA when he said:
"... We know nothing about the EFF. It chooses to utilize the courts for
what may be a political agenda, and yet we know nothing regarding the
individuals or organizations who make up the EFF or provide financial
support to it. Perhaps a healthy dose of 'public disclosure' so
vigorously sought by these organizations would be usefully applied to
their own activities as well, so the public will know who supports and
funds them when they purport to be acting in the public interest."
Taking a defensive position about its funding when asked AGAIN who was donating to the group, EFF spokesman Jami Lund told the Olympian (a fine newspaper): "But even if we got our money straight from the Communist Party or the Ku Klux Klan, it doesn't mean that the things we are saying aren't true."
So, EFF joins PCE to blast teachers in Utah and around the country for pooling their small contributions to help fight the flawed voucher law that would siphon public taxpayer funds and send those monies to an unaccountable, private school system? Because teachers around the United States believe in their heart of hearts that vouchers are bad?
And yet EFF won't come clean - and PCE won't come clean - about who is funding the pro-voucher effort in Utah? Come on. It's time for them to put up or shut up.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Teachers with small dollars vs the millionaires
Yes, let's talk about who funds either side of the current education voucher ballot issue in Utah.
The pro-voucher group(s) don't want to talk about who is funding it(them). That's why Parents for Choice in Education (PCE) received the lion's share of its contributions from two artificially-created entities, the PCE "Foundation" and PCE, INC. (a corporation). Two-thirds of PCE's funding - as last reported - came from these two entities.
See, under Utah's laws, neither a foundation nor a corporation has to report its donors. So, ANONYMOUS people (or an ANONYMOUS person) is funding Utah's pro-voucher movement. You can read more about it here.
But while they hide behind a veil of secrecy as to their donors,they attack public school teachers and the teachers' organization for financially supporting the anti-voucher side.
Why attack public school teachers? My Mom? My Mom's friends? Mrs. Rainman, my favorite 6th grade teacher? Why are they being assaulted?
Maybe because the pro-voucher groups don't want you to know who's funding them. It's a big secret. But I know who is funding the anti-voucher side: Mom and her friends.
So, let's look at who has funded the pro-voucher side before.
I looked back at the 2000 elections in California and Michigan. Both of those states had private school vouchers on the ballot. Guess what? It was millionaires who funded the pro-private school voucher side.
In case you want to check it out, check out this news article. In California, Tim Draper put $24 MILLION of his own money into the pro-voucher campaign, and in Michigan it was Dick DeVos, the Amway heir, who put in at least $5 million.
In fact, in Michigan, the PRO-voucher side spent TWICE what the public school supporters spent, as reported here.
So, come on, a few dollars each from teachers in Utah and throughout the country and you want to complain that TEACHERS are spending too much? Among the teaching ranks there aren't a lot of millionaires who can single-handedly fund a campaign.
But I sure am interested to know what millionaire is hiding behind the skirts of the PCE "Foundation" and PCE, Inc.
The pro-voucher group(s) don't want to talk about who is funding it(them). That's why Parents for Choice in Education (PCE) received the lion's share of its contributions from two artificially-created entities, the PCE "Foundation" and PCE, INC. (a corporation). Two-thirds of PCE's funding - as last reported - came from these two entities.
See, under Utah's laws, neither a foundation nor a corporation has to report its donors. So, ANONYMOUS people (or an ANONYMOUS person) is funding Utah's pro-voucher movement. You can read more about it here.
But while they hide behind a veil of secrecy as to their donors,they attack public school teachers and the teachers' organization for financially supporting the anti-voucher side.
Why attack public school teachers? My Mom? My Mom's friends? Mrs. Rainman, my favorite 6th grade teacher? Why are they being assaulted?
Maybe because the pro-voucher groups don't want you to know who's funding them. It's a big secret. But I know who is funding the anti-voucher side: Mom and her friends.
So, let's look at who has funded the pro-voucher side before.
I looked back at the 2000 elections in California and Michigan. Both of those states had private school vouchers on the ballot. Guess what? It was millionaires who funded the pro-private school voucher side.
In case you want to check it out, check out this news article. In California, Tim Draper put $24 MILLION of his own money into the pro-voucher campaign, and in Michigan it was Dick DeVos, the Amway heir, who put in at least $5 million.
In fact, in Michigan, the PRO-voucher side spent TWICE what the public school supporters spent, as reported here.
So, come on, a few dollars each from teachers in Utah and throughout the country and you want to complain that TEACHERS are spending too much? Among the teaching ranks there aren't a lot of millionaires who can single-handedly fund a campaign.
But I sure am interested to know what millionaire is hiding behind the skirts of the PCE "Foundation" and PCE, Inc.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)