Mediaboss Marketing

Here's another thing: The attack ad on Larry Hogan that claims Anthony Brown's Republican challenger for governor wants to give a $300 million tax break to corporations at the expense of kindergartners that's another stretch into the shady side by the Democrats, and for a couple of reasons.

First of all, Hogan hasn't said any such thing yet, although, being a mainstream Republican businessman, he says he would cut Maryland's corporate tax rate, and we all know the story there: You can't be a Republican without saying you want to cut taxes. It's a thing with them. It gets into the DNA after a couple of generations.

Of course, it might make no sense. There might be no guarantee that cutting corporate taxes will grow the Maryland economy and create badly needed jobs. But it sounds good. It's like a bird call to companies thinking about building a nest in the Hardly Free State: Hey-you-guys, lookie-here lookie-here lookie-here!

It's not a Rick Perry-style Come-to-Texas-and-Exploit-Our-Workers kind of message, but it sets the tone that Maryland is open for business.

Now, Hogan has said he wants to reduce spending first, then see about cutting taxes. But Brown supporters, lead by the Democratic Governors Association, apparently took a legislative analysis of cutting the corporate tax rate by 2.25 percent, and they pinned the $300 million cost of doing that on Hogan.

And since he isn't as hot about expanding pre-K education as Brown is (because Hogan doesn't think we have the money to pay for it), then ole Larry must be a shill for millionaires. After all, the Supreme Court says corporations are people, and such people are likely to be millionaires who live where the air is rare (and I don't mean Back River).

So, you get the picture: Hogan wants to make the rich richer while depriving little bitty children of a head start on education; the children most likely to be deprived would be those from families that cannot afford pre-K otherwise.

In other words, Hogan wants to take $300 million that could go to poor children and give it to rich guys in suits.

I got all that from a 30-second television ad.

(By the way, here's the only downside to the Orioles now being on national television instead of MASN: No ridiculous Barry Glazer commercials.)

Continued here:
Democrats knock Hogan, but they like tax breaks, too

TOPEKA, Kan. A Kansas court ruled Wednesday that Democrats can go without a U.S. Senate candidate on the ballot after their nominee dropped out of the race against three-term Republican Sen. Pat Roberts, a blow to the GOP in the national battle over control of the Senate.

A panel of three Shawnee County District Court judges said a state election law does not require Democrats to fill the candidate vacancy. The judges also said the disgruntled voter who sued the state Democratic Party and three of its top officials failed to provide evidence to sustain it by refusing to participate in the only hearing in the case Monday.

Some Democrats pushed former nominee Chad Taylor out of the race because they saw independent candidate Greg Orman as the stronger rival for Roberts and didnt want to split the anti-Roberts vote.

The Kansas Supreme Court allowed Taylor to remove his name from the Nov. 4 ballot last month, but the voter immediately sued the Democratic Party.

Many Democrats didnt want to have a candidate to avoid a split in the anti-Roberts vote, while many Republicans hoped Democrats would be forced to replace Taylor, to siphon votes away from Orman.

The GOP needs a net gain of six seats to recapture a Senate majority and has always counted on Roberts winning re-election in a state that has elected only Republicans to the chamber since 1932. But Roberts looked vulnerable after a difficult primary against a tea party challenger and still faces questions about his residency after a long career in Washington.

Secretary of State Kris Kobach a Republican and a strong Roberts supporter who unsuccessfully sought to block Taylors removal from the ballot said counties need to begin printing tens of thousands of ballots Thursday so that people could start voting in advance on Oct. 15.

The lawsuit was filed by David Orel, 57, a longtime registered Democrat from Kansas City, Kansas. His 22-year-old son, Alex, works on the re-election campaign of GOP Gov. Sam Brownback, a Roberts supporter.

Orels attorney, Tom Haney, of Topeka, said Orel simply wants to vote for a Democrat in the Nov. 4 election. He refused to show up Monday for the only hearing in the case because, Haney said, he faced intense news media scrutiny.

Read the original post:
Democrats dont need Kansas Senate nominee, court rules

Immigration Reform - Advice for illegals

By: Marijan Cvjeticanin

See the original post here:
Immigration Reform - Advice for illegals - Video

Less than a month after President Obama announced he would delay using his executive authority to reform immigration laws, there is evidence that the decision is doing exactly what he hoped to avoid: hurting Democrats.

Activists in key states say it is increasingly difficult to register would-be Latino voters who would vote for Democrats because of unhappiness over the decision. Poll numbers for Obama and Democrats have also dropped farther among Hispanics than the population at large. One group has even launched a campaign against four Democratic senators who backed a GOP proposal to bar Obama from taking any executive action on immigration.

The president has not helped us, said activist Leo Murietta, 28, who is working to register Latino voters in Colorado for Mi Familia Vota. People are disappointed. They wanted action, they wanted activity, they wanted movement.

With so many congressional and gubernatorial candidates locked in close races this year, Democrats cant afford signs of complacency or sagging support. But Murietta and others believe that only action not promises of action will help spur increased turnout among Hispanics with just five weeks until Election Day.

Obama is scheduled to speak Thursday night at a gala hosted by the Congressional Hispanic Caucus his first appearance in front of the group in three years. The address is expected to include a mention of his commitment to immigration reform and a vow to fix as much of our immigration system as he can on his own, according to a senior administration official familiar with his plans.

But outside the gala, dozens of protesters plan to picket Obama and the lawmakers who invited him, alleging a brutal betrayal of Latinos, according to organizers. And inside the room, Obama will be among the lawmakers most upset by his decision to wait.

We would not wait until after November if it was an issue affecting the gay and lesbian community, Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez (D-Ill.), a critic of Obamas work on immigration, said at the conference Wednesday afternoon. If this was about womens reproductive rights, if this was about the minimum wage, if this was about a series of other issues, the Democratic Party would come together.

Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Tex.) said hes found widespread frustration. A lot of people understand theres a political calculation, but those same people understand theres a lot of people suffering because he didn't act, he said in an interview.

Labor Secretary Tom Perez, who is under consideration as Obamas next attorney general, sought to reassure conference attendees Wednesday. But his message fell flat.

The question of executive action, my friends, is a when? question, Perez said. Immigration, he added later, is all about his values and his leadership. And thats why I love working for this president.

Link:
Growing evidence that Obamas decision to wait on immigration is hurting Democrats

Posted Thu, October 2nd, 2014 6:40 am by Lyle Denniston

Two significant First Amendment cases that have been awaiting the Supreme Courts reaction for a year are on the way to beingsettled, with the real prospect that former stars in big-time college football and basketball will get a share of a $60 million fund. Of that, $40 million would be put up by the maker of video games about college sports, and $20 million by the National Collegiate Athletic Association the group that makes policy for competition in collegiate athletics.

The proposed settlements, which will be circulated among collegians who previously played in the NCAAs Division I (its major league for football and basketball competition), are due for a federal district court hearing next May on whether the deal is a fair one. In the meantime, the two sides agreed to end attempts (see hereand here) to get the Supreme Court to rule on a claimed clash between the First Amendment and the right under state law giving people of some renowna legal right to exploit financially their own fame (the so-called right of publicity).

The NCAA and Electronic Arts Inc. a video-game developer that has gained its own fame with games under the label EA Sports have been in a running, years-long legal battle with former Division I athletes who gained fame for their playing feats. At issue were television broadcasts of the games in which the athletes had played, and video games using near-lifelike avatars of the collegians, with their feats opento manipulation by the players. The NCAA made deals for the broadcasts and the development of the video games.

The settlements that have won a California judges preliminary approval involve the class-action lawsuits against the NCAA and Electronic Arts over the video games.

The legal battle is not over yet, at least for the NCAA, because an ongoing lawsuit, now developing in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, grows out of the athletes claim that the NCAA violated federal antitrust law by stifling competition for publicity about the stars performances on gridirons and basketball arenas.

The same judge who gave at least initial approval in early September to the settlement of the video games hadruled last August that the NCAA had violated antitrust law, and nowmust put together a fund that would give the athletes covered by the ruling $5,000 for each year they were featured in televised broadcasts of their games.

It has been estimated that the antitrust case could lead to payments totaling $300 million over a four-year period. That would be five times the size of the funds that would be provided to settle the two videogames cases against Electronic Arts. Those are cases about the right of publicity. Earlier, Electronic Arts faced an antitrust claim, like that against the NCAA, but that was settled earlier, and the antitrust case moves aheadin the Ninth Circuit only against the NCAA.

Meanwhile, at the National Labor Relations Board, the NCAA is fighting against a lower-ranking board officials ruling that collegiate athletes are legally entitled to be treated as employees of their institutions, and thus are entitled to form and join labor unions to bargain over pay and working conditions. That dispute focuses on the meaning of federal labor law.

The two cases that were filed at the Supreme Court a year ago by Electronic Arts have been idling away for months on the Courts docket, with the former athletes getting repeated extensions of time to respond. The issue in both cases one from the Ninth Circuit, and one from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit raised the same constitutional question: does the First Amendment right to free speech give video-game developers a right to create visual and sound games, and does that right provide a defense to a lawsuit claiming a violation of the right of publicity? Both circuitsrejected that defense.

Read this article:
Big payday for ex-college sports stars?