You're in all Blogs Section

Political News and Views from a Foxes Perspective!

Posted on July 12, 2011 by admin — No Comments ↓

A new kind of political fact checking

This section of our site will provide up-to-date analysis of political news as it relates to potential Foxes in the Henhouse. In other words, we aim to provide a new method of political fact checking As we’ve stated, we do not pretend that we know everyone’s motives and intentions. We also do not intend to pick on one political party more than the other. Our goal is merely to openly and constructively point out instances where there is the appearance of a fox guarding a henhouse as a result of a decision a political leader has made, or as the result of funding or other support he or she has received. We leave it up to our readers to decide whether there was a true conflict of motives or secretive deal making.

The posts on this page will generally follow our main topic list, and you can get more information about each topic as follows:

Independent Advocacy Groups such as 527s, Non-Profits, PACs, and Super PACs

Current Elected Leaders at the federal and state level, or Candidates for office during each election season

Political Appointees who head departments or task forces again at the federal and state level

Others with hidden agendas and dual roles such as corporations, polling companies, and the media

Thank you for visiting, and as always, please feel free to contribute feedback through the comments section, or suggest stories about politicians, political groups, and outside interest groups with dual roles and hidden agendas through the suggest content page.

Posted in General

Super PACs threaten to overrun the henhouse with foxes!

Posted on February 2, 2012 by admin — No Comments ↓

Super PACs can collect unlimited amounts of money from individuals, groups of individuals, and companies that they will spend during the election season attacking opposing candidates or supporting a candidate. Each quarter the public will see the names of the people, groups, and companies that have donated to these Super PACs. Ignoring arguments about the corrupting influence of money in our political system, and the idea that each citizen should have a relatively equal opportunity to be heard (as opposed to allowing the rich to have a louder voice), the Supreme Court decided that money in politics was equivalent to free speech.

Super PACs have suddenly become a huge source of fundraising for elections, particularly for Republicans. They might help elect a particular candidate to congress or the presidency. In doing so, the Super PACs will let a lot of foxes into the henhouse. These elected officials will need to please the major donors to the Super PAC – or fear that the powerful group will support someone else when it is re-election time!

So, who are these potential foxes in the henhouse? Who are we seeing as the big donors to these large and powerful Republican Super PACs? In the first disclosure we see home builders and land developers, oil and gas companies, and chemical companies. These corporations would benefit from reductions in environmental regulations, loosening of business oversight, and greater subsidies to their industries. Once in the henhouse, they would certainly remind the elected official of the support they gave – especially given that in many cases we’re seeing multiples of seven figure donations from some in these industries to Super PACs. Would the elected official dare ignore these requests from these foxes in the henhouse if the Super PAC was going to instrumental in getting him or her re-elected?

It will be important to follow the results of the election in terms of watching the henhouse foxes these Super PACs create – though it’s too bad that our system allows this kind of potential corruption in the first place.

Tagged with: business, corporate, election, outside groups, political contributions, political spending, republican party, republicans, Super PACs
Posted in Outside Groups

Why is the global warming debate so close?

Posted on January 21, 2012 by admin — No Comments ↓

On one side 97% of climate scientists feel that global warming is happening and caused by human activity. 80% of non-climate scientists agree. The independent scientific agencies of 19 governments, whose funding is not tied to whether there is or isn’t climate change, have all concluded that global warming is happening and that human activity is the cause. Most people when they stop and think about the weather in the locality and their country do admit that it seems different than it was 20 years ago. And there is compelling evidence that is statistical and quite foolproof that should at least spark some concern among even those who are skeptical. All of this said, can we say for absolute 100% sure that global warming is caused by humans? No. But, one still wonders why the debate about climate change seems so balanced. You would think that those who do not think global warming is happening would be having a harder time getting their message out.

Enter the power of the corporation with deep pockets. Big oil and chemical companies are in this fight, and have admitted to spending money on proving the science the shows that global warming is not happening. This, in itself, is certainly their right in a capitalist democracy. And also by itself it is a good explanation of why the debate is so close – since the corporations likely have a huge amount of money to pool together on their PR campaigns against climate change while the government scientists have very limited funding and most of it is directed toward the actual experimentation and study, not PR. So why is this a Foxes in the Henhouse proposition?

Recent evidence points to the likelihood that big oil and others who would benefit significantly financially if global warming was not addressed have funded scientists who have not used appropriate scientific methods, such as not allowing others to peer review their results (i.e. having independent scientists mak sure that they actually did what they said they did in a sound way to reach their conclusions). These companies have even funded scientists who have merely stated their opinions and theories about global warming with no solid scientific experimental evidence at all. Thus the debate is not fair – one side is charged with using appropriate scientific methods to prove something that is actually quite tricky to prove, while the other side is able to skirt these methods when stating its case. This Foxes problem is tilting the debate about global warming unfairly, and could have consequences for all of us down the road.

Tagged with: big oil, business, climate change, corporations, global warming, science
Posted in Outside Groups

At least SuperPACs will have to dislose their donors, right?

Posted on January 16, 2012 by admin — No Comments ↓

When the Supreme Court decided in Citizen’s United to allow corporations and unions to donate unlimited money to political campaigns, there was one silver lining for those of us who were concerned about the corrupting effect of additional money in our political system: “Full disclosure of where the money was coming from was going to be required. So while this landmark decision that would take apart campaign finance reform and result in money pouring in from big business and rich individuals who wanted to win influence around politically charged issues important to them, at least they would have to be outed at some point. This would, presumably, limit foxes in the henhouse possibilities.

In reality, however, the system is not exactly working as intended. This is no surprise given that big money in politics is almost always hard to trace, and large donors can almost always find ways to make their contributions secret. In this case, corporate interests are benefiting from loose rules with regard to timing – yes they will eventually be outed, but the rules allow for some delay, often until after the election when no one is paying attention. And even when they do disclose, if there is information that is missing or inaccurate, the weakness of the deadlocked FEC, whose foxes in the henhouse situation is covered in more detail on our “Political Appointees” page, means that there is a good chance nothing will happen in the way of punishment anyway.

So, why the Supreme Court ruling seemed on its surface to require full disclosure – since it was predicated on the idea of free speech – the dissenters on the court were proven correct that many big donors would find their way around disclosure and the potential for the corruption that campaign finance laws were designed to control would be strong.

Posted in Outside Groups

Which came first, the political donor or the political view?

Posted on October 30, 2011 by admin — No Comments ↓

The heading here could also read: “Is a donation a please or a thank you?” Ideally donors give to candidates who have positions on political issues that match their own. They want that candidate to win, based on his or her history of promoting the issues and values that matter most to the donor. While there may be hope that the candidate will vote a certain way on upcoming issues, or even introduce new legislation, it is all based on his or her history on similar issues. This is the way our political system works, and it benefits republicans and democrats, allowing them to attract money from those who agree with their stances on a wide variety of issues.

Where we run into a fox in the henhouse proposition, however, is when the donor comes first, and the issue position is a result. Issue positions and opinions should not be bought or they will end up going to the highest bidder and not necessarily be what’s best for the country. If a donor can buy a political position of a candidate, then the candidate is beholden to that position, even if events or circumstances change that might warrant a change in position. This may all seem obvious, but unfortunately the truth is that high-end donors, and especially high-end donors who pool together often end up manipulating a candidate’s political views.

With the rise in 527 and other outside group spending after the recent Supreme Court decision in Citizen’s United, this issue has become even more complicated. On the one hand, with many wealthy donors not giving directly to candidates, their ability to directly influence the candidate later – to ask for payback – is a bit more limited. However, with the dramatic increase in the power of 527s, politicians will fear that if they turn their back on these groups and their donors they will feel their wrath the next time around.

Our point here is that political donations should be a support and a thank you to the candidate most likely to support one’s beliefs and ideals, not a bribe designed to get undue influence and favor after he or she is elected.

Tagged with: campaign, contributions, democatic, democratic party, donors, election, outside groups, political contributions, political spending, republican party, republicans
Posted in Donors

Electability issues in the campaign…Rick Perry must be stewing…

Posted on September 27, 2011 by admin — No Comments ↓

Today we present a bit of a twist on the “Foxes in the Henhouse” theme. During any political campaign, the political party out of power must keep two very important goals in mind: Choosing a candidate that matches what the party’s goals are as far as political issues and ideals, and also choosing a candidate that can win the election. In many cases these two goals are one in the same. However, right now, as this post is being written, we are wondering whether there are some henhouse foxes in both parties when it comes to the republican presidential candidates who will be narrowed to one by the voters in about six months.

Most political polls are showing that Rick Perry has excited more of the republican party base. When his record and political issue statements are matched against the rest of the candidate field, he seems to be a great fit for the republican and conservative voting base. However, those same polls show a significant difference between how Mr. Perry and Mr. Romney fare against the incumbent democrat, President Obama with Mr. Romney faring better in a general election.

Here is where we have the potential, and actual evidence of henhouse foxes:

- Established, mainstream republicans seem to be subtly attacking Rick Perry for fear that Mr. Perry could fail in the general election

- Less subtle and more direct attacks of Mr. Perry are also beginning by republicans, but in many cases they are not admitting it’s about electability for fear of alienating the base

- Even Democrats are getting into the swing, actually staying silent in Mr. Perry even though he is the front-runner, and attacking Mr. Romney.

This twist on the theme will be interesting to watch if the political polls hold this fall. Will conservatives decide to be more open about their fears, or will henhouse foxes dominate and try to undermine Mr. Perry behind the scenes?

Tagged with: campaign, conservatives, democatic, democratic party, election, general election, political polls, politicians, polls, republican party, republicans, voters
Posted in Political Parties

The Deficit Supercommittee has the wrong members!

Posted on September 18, 2011 by admin — No Comments ↓

When a private business feels like it’s leaders may have views that are too biased, one-sided, or the result of tunnel vision since they may be jaded working within one company’s culture, they hire an outside consultant. When a private company feels like it can get better and specific expertise than it has internally on a project of huge importance, they also hire a consultant. Why then does our congress never hire consultants, when the vast majority of our congresspeople, republicans and democrats, believe in the power of the way the private business sector does things!

Imagine a scenario where instead of political leaders being on the committee, who are relying on campaign contributions from those individuals and groups who have a stake in the outcome of the deficit subcommittee’s recommendations, the two political parties each picked economists and financial experts to make recommendations. Imagine if these new members did not have to worry about the effect of their decisions on campaign contributions next election cycle, and only had to think about what might work best? And imagine the power of having people who actually have dedicated their lives to these issues sitting in a room working out a plan, and not having politicians who may or may not have some knowledge about economics and finance.

It will never happen, since our foxes in the henhouse in congress want to maintain control of the process, and likely want to get credit for the outcome (or toss blame if the outcome turns sour). Hardened political views and re-election dynamics will thus likely trump real economic theory. The power of the foxes in the henhouse dynamic is startling, as is the arrogance that goes along with it.

Tagged with: deficit, democatic, democratic party, political leaders, politicians, republican party, republicans, supercommittee
Posted in Political Parties

Do the Republicans need to block even the good ideas?

Posted on September 2, 2011 by admin — No Comments ↓

Given that the current president is a member of the democratic party and will be running for re-election next year against a republican, in a narrow sense the best case scenario for republicans is that his policies fail. Then again, what happens if the president suggests a policy that actually can lead to job growth, deficit reduction, stimulation of business, effective reduction of regulations, etc. Is the republican-led house of representatives a fox in the henhouse, needing to block these new ideas for their own good over what could be a greater good. Of course if the shoes were on the other feet we might be saying the same thing about democrats.

This concern is deeply troubling – at the time of this post there is high unemployment, GDP is weak, and many economic indicators are troubling. We need our government to look past all of this partisan gamesmanship and do whatever will work best. Yet up against this lofty goal is the opposing party’s rationalization that if they block even the good ideas in the short-term, and thereby create failure for the president, they can assume full control in the longer term. This rationalization is bad for our country and is the ultimate fox in the henhouse in our system.

Our sister sites, a collective good and political truth serum will also be exploring this important topic over the next few days.

Tagged with: democatic, democratic party, election, policies, political parties, president, re election, republican party
Posted in Political Parties

Mainstream Media – Biased?

Posted on August 22, 2011 by admin — No Comments ↓

The mainsteam media has been a target of republicans for some time now, and it seems that the intensity of feelings that there is liberal bias among mainstream media outlets is increasing. The problem with these assertions for both sides of the political aisle is that they are hard to prove. What is likely and easier to prove is that many media members do fit demographics more typical of democratic voters – given the colleges they went to, the attitudes of their professors, and regions of the country where they now concentrate. All of this said, it would be unfair to assume that the fact that more mainstream media members vote for democrats in itself necessarily leads to any bias.

Studies have tried to explore whether there is any mainstream media bias. One study out of UCLA found a left-leaning bias by counting the number of times media outlets mentioned left and right leaning advocacy groups and organizations. However, the methods used in this study were faulted by many of the media outlets studied – including those often known to lean right or lean left. Other studies have tried to analyze and compare the types of stories written during campaigns to see if there are more positive stories typically written about one side or the other, and still others have looked back through history to see whether more positive stories tend to follow certain leaders, depending on their political orientation. None of these studies trying to explore media bias has led to any substantive conclusions.

The fact that in this age where statistical science is well advanced we have not been able to prove any “liberal bias” in the media in general might suggest that perhaps there is none overall. Another possibility is that media outlets are biased, but the rise of conservative leaning networks cancel out the liberal biases of others in any meta study. Finally, it is possible that the mainstream media stays adamantly so central and middle-of-the-road that those who have views on the far right or left do not feel they are completely covered or heard.

Nothing in this post suggests that individual media outlets and companies are not both biased and foxes in the henhouse, and we will surely be covering some of them in more detail!

Tagged with: bias, democatic, left wing, media, republican party, republicans, right wing
Posted in Media

Bias in the Political Polling Companies

Posted on August 21, 2011 by admin — No Comments ↓

With the rise in the internet and technologies that allow for fast and easy communication, political polling has become easier to do and more popular than ever. Polls are published about all aspects of the election campaigns, and almost every decision made by our political leaders is polled. Polling result web sites are extremely popular as people are very interested to know how many people agree or disagree with their own opinion, and what the prospects are for their own selected candidate or political party.

Recently we’ve seen a potential problem emerge with polling companies that raises issues related to Foxes in the Henhouse. We’re going to focus on the most obvious example to make our point: Rasmussen Reports polls. It has been reported that these polls may be biased toward the Republican Party and issues favored by republicans, with the following evidence given:

The weighting of their surveys is based on predetermined assumptions about the party identification of voters in the state they are calling, and many have found this weighting to assume too many republican voters.
Using initial questions to bias the responses to later questions, including this real example that was used in a question about drilling:

Question 1: “How concerned are you about rising gas and energy prices?”

Question 2: “In order to reduce the price of gas, should drilling be allowed in offshore oil wells off the coasts of California, Florida, and other states?”

Using methods that might exclude certain groups, some of whom are more likely Democratic voters. This includes not calling cell phones and therefore having a sample dominated by older households, and calling only during very particular times of day which may bias the sample toward certain demographics.

It does not help his image that the founder of Rasmussen Reports, Scott Rasmussen, has reportedly openly and strongly supported conservative causes, but this is largely irrelevant because every pollster has their own political bias. What we worry about in this case is whether that bias actually affects what are supposed to be scientific polls.

Tagged with: bias, democatic, polling, polls, rasmussen, republican party, republicans
Posted in Advocacy Groups

The Influence of Outside Money due to Citizen’s United

Posted on August 19, 2011 by admin — No Comments ↓

At times we might be accused of favoring one party over another. Actually, our aim is to show that both parties have issues leading to there being foxes in the henhouse. The Supreme Court decision in the Citizen’s United case, which not only made it possible once again for wealthy donors, corporations, and unions to contribute unlimited amounts of money to elections, but also made it possible for corporations and wealthy donors to hide their identities. Unfortunately, this dynamic is the perfect set up for inviting foxes to the henhouse – we don’t even know who is funding the message we are watching, and who will stand to benefit if we vote in the way the message prescribes.

Here is where we do have to point out that while the decision certainly “benefited” both parties since corporations lean toward supporting the republican party and unions lean toward the democratic party, the parts of the ruling that made it possible for wealthy individuals to donate unlimited sums certainly and the part that allowed for people to keep their identities hidden, benefited republican candidates more.

The point here is not to debate the legal merits of the ruling, but rather to begin the discussion about the effects it has brought, including the potential foxes in the henhouse.

Tagged with: 527s, citizens united, corporations, outside groups, republican party, unions
Posted in Outside Groups