Black Women Face a Greater Risk of Domestic Violence. : ThyBlackMan.com

Black Women Face a Greater Risk of Domestic Violence. : ThyBlackMan.com
JohnButts@JBMedia - Reports:
The high toll gun violence exacts on black males is all too well known. Less known is the fact that black women also face a disproportionate risk of lethal violence.
That’s what we found in a new study released by my organization, the Violence Policy Center, for Domestic Violence Awareness Month. Using data from the FBI’s unpublished Supplementary Homicide Report, we found that black women are murdered by men at a rate more than two and a half times higher than white women.
In 2011, the most recent year for which such data is available, black females were murdered by males at a rate of 2.61 per 100,000 in single victim/single offender incidents. For white women, the rate was 0.99 per 100,000.
To understand these numbers, here are some important facts to keep in mind. First, the primary risk of violence does not come from strangers. Ninety-four percent of black women were murdered by someone they knew (a proportion that is equally high for white women).
And the vast majority of homicides of black females were not related to any other felony crime. Most often, they were killed in the course of an argument. In cases where the circumstances could be identified, 87 percent were not related to the commission of any other felony.
If not strangers, then who are the killers? At least half of the murders were a result of domestic violence. Among the black female victims who knew their offenders, 52 percent were wives, common-law wives, ex-wives, or girlfriends. Also, 93 percent of the homicides were intra-racial.
Gun violence plays a predominant role in homicides among black women. When the murder weapon could be identified, 51 percent of black female victims were shot and killed with a gun. Within that group, 82 percent were shot and killed with a handgun.
That’s why women tempted to buy a gun for their self-protection should know that guns aren’t the answer to domestic violence. In fact, several studies have found that having a gun in the home actually increases a woman’s chance of being murdered. For African Americans as well as other women, guns are used not to save lives but to take them.
We should not sit back and accept a society where black women face a higher chance of getting killed. Women should be aware of resources that are available to help them escape domestic violence situations. And we simply cannot wait any longer before we pass effective laws to stop our national epidemic of gun violence.

Koch brothers’ Arizona allies fined $1 million over hiding California campaign funding | The Raw Story

Koch brothers’ Arizona allies fined $1 million over hiding California campaign funding | The Raw Story
JohnButts@JBMedia - Reports:
Two dark money groups linked to conservative billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch have paid a record $1 million in fines to California to settle allegations that the combined $15 million they spent on two ballot proposals in the state was not properly disclosed.
The civil settlement, announced Thursday afternoon in Sacramento, caps a year of investigation into the activities of the two Arizona groups, Americans for Responsible Leadership and the Center to Protect Patient Rights.
The settlement disclosed new details in the case, including how the money was raised and how the Center to Protect Patient Rights disguised its two contributions to two California political committees. As part of the settlement, the Center to Protect Patient Rights conceded it was responsible for funneling $11 million through Americans for Responsible Leadership to a political committee spending money to fight a tax-hike measure and to support a proposition restricting unions’ political power.
The Center to Protect Patient Rights also gave an additional $4 million to another dark money group, the American Future Fund, which gave the money to another political committee spending on the anti-union measure.
“What is the takeaway from this trail of dark money?” asked Ann Ravel, the outgoing head of California’s Fair Political Practices Commission, which investigated the groups along with the state attorney general’s office. “This is a nationwide issue. These groups exploit loopholes in the law to undermine the clear purpose of the law, to give essential information to the public.”
The state assessed one $500,000 fine to the Center to Protect Patient Rights only, and another $500,000 fine to the two groups jointly. The state is also demanding that the two political committees “disgorge,” or hand over, the $15 million they received in improper donations through the Center to Protect Patient Rights before the end of November. All of the money would go to California’s general fund.
In an interview, Gary Winuk, the chief of enforcement for the California Fair Political Practices Commission, acknowledged that the state may have to go to court to recover that $15 million. One of the political committees has already closed down.
The settlement says California authorities determined that the Center to Protect Patient Rights “inadvertently, or at worst negligently,” did not report itself as a donor to the American Future Fund. A similar decision was made on the group’s lack of disclosure to Americans for Responsible Leadership.
In a statement sent through its lawyer, the Center to Protect Patient Rights said the commission recognized it erred largely because it had never before made contributions in California and that it had no intention to violate campaign reporting rules.
“Also, the California Attorney General conducted a complete and thorough investigation and agreed that the conduct was unintentional and inadvertent,” said the lawyer, Malcolm Segal.
Americans for Responsible Leadership did not return a message seeking comment.
Anonymous money funneled through social welfare nonprofits and trade associations has become a major factor in federal elections since the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision in early 2010 opened up the door to unlimited corporate and union spending on outside ads, as documented by ProPublica. In the past two election cycles, social welfare nonprofits have spent more than $350 million, mostly from unknown donors, on election ads telling people to vote for or against federal candidates.
Some national groups have also started playing on the state level, particularly with ballot proposals.
The California agreement, reached on Oct. 17, underscored how some states, such as California, Idaho and Montana, have actually done more to identify anonymous donors than the Federal Election Commission. In June, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman imposed regulations attempting to require disclosure for money spent on state elections. A new disclosure bill has been introduced in California. This month, after a push by California’s Ravel, regulators from 10 states announced the launch of a nationwide effort to encourage the disclosure of donors.
But the settlement also highlights the limitations of investigations into who’s behind dark money groups: Instead of unmasking some reclusive billionaire or shy corporation, regulators often uncover yet another nonprofit, like a set of Russian nesting dolls. The original sources of the money spent in California were not publicly identified, nor will they be.
“A number of donors did not want to be identified,” said Winuk, the enforcement chief for California’s campaign finance regulator, who received only a redacted list of donors for the original contributions.
And while the groups have been linked to the Koch brothers, it’s not clear how exactly they’re connected. The Center to Protect Patient Rights, which operates out of a post office box in Arizona and doesn’t even have a website, has been described practically like an ATM machine for various groups affiliated with the Koch brothers. The press release issued by California authorities says the Center and Americans for Responsible Leadership “operated as part of the ‘Koch Brothers Network’ of dark money political nonprofit corporations.”
The Kochs have long been known for spending millions to influence elections behind the scenes, through a complex network of groups that critics have nicknamed “the Kochtopus.” The Kochs themselves have remained determinedly in the background. 
One link between these two groups and the Koch network is Sean Noble, a GOP strategist who runs two political consulting firms and is the sole employee of the Center to Protect Patient Rights, which was launched in 2009. In 2010, he spoke on a panel at a Koch brothers’ secretive retreat, small semiannual affairs that are invitation-only and closed to the media. In 2010 and 2011, the Center to Protect Patient Rights handed out almost $60 million to conservative groups that spent tens of millions on election ads. The Huffington Post recently quoted a GOP operative describing Noble as “the wizard behind the screen” for the Koch network’s election efforts in 2012.
Noble did not return a call for comment.
Another link is Wayne Gable, a former top official at Koch Industries who has also served in leadership roles in several nonprofits formed by the Kochs. In 2011, Gable launched a new trade association that gave almost $115 million to the Center to Protect Patient Rights over the following year. It’s not yet clear how the Center doled out its money, as its tax return for 2012 isn’t yet available.
The leader of Americans for Responsible Leadership has close ties to Noble. Republican Kirk Adams hired Noble’s firm in 2011 and 2012 to help run his failed campaign to replace outgoing U.S. Rep. Jeff Flake in Arizona. Adams lost in the primary in August 2012; the next month, he was named president of Americans for Responsible Leadership.
According to the settlement, some $24.5 million of the money distributed by the Center to Protect Patient Rights was raised by GOP strategist Tony Russo for another organization, Americans for Job Security, a Virginia-based trade association. (Russo didn’t return calls for comment.)
Americans for Job Security gave the money to the Center to Protect Patient Rights. Then the Center gave about $7 million to the Iowa dark money powerhouse American Future Fund on Sept. 11, 2012; of that, the American Future Fund gave about $4 million to a new California committee, the California Future Fund for Free Markets, which supported the anti-union measure. That committee has since closed down.
The Center also gave $18 million to Americans for Responsible Leadership in October 2012, recommending that the group “should use the funds to support common social interests, including support” for the Small Business Action Committee PAC, a committee that Russo was also raising money for, the settlement said. Americans for Responsible Leadership then gave $11 million to the Small Business Action Committee PAC to spend on the two ballot proposals.
That $11 million contribution sparked a complaint, an investigation and a court battle. Just before the election, Americans for Responsible Leadership admitted that it got its money from the Center to Protect Patient Rights, which in turn got the money from Americans for Job Security.
The fine is the largest in California history in a campaign-finance case.
The manner in which the groups paid it speaks volumes about how dark their money really is.
They paid by cashier’s check, sent by a Sacramento lawyer’s office Thursday morning, betraying no clue to the money’s origin. 

How Rand Paul's Proposed Constitutional Amendment Could Make Rand Paul Super-Rich | ThinkProgress

How Rand Paul's Proposed Constitutional Amendment Could Make Rand Paul Super-Rich | ThinkProgress
JohnButts@JBMedia - Reports: October 22, 2013 at 10:25 am

In an attempt to breathe more life into a false claim that the Affordable Care Act gives special privileges to members of Congress — in reality, Obamacare requires lawmakers to purchase health insurance on an exchange but allows them to keep the same employer contribution to these costs that every other federal employee enjoys — Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) introduced a constitutional amendment that would supposedly “hold government officials to the same standard as the American people.” Yet his amendment is so poorly drafted that it would likely have the exact opposite effect of what he claims. Should Paul’s amendment be ratified, it could convert members of Congress into a superprivileged class entitled to collect every welfare benefit offered by the federal government, regardless of their age, health or income.
Paul’s amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to Congress,” and then includes similar provisions applying to executive branch officials and federal judges. The problem with this language, however, is that it makes no distinction between laws that give special privileges to members of Congress and laws that exclude them from federal benefits for entirely legitimate reasons.
To give an absurd — but entirely plausible example, given the breadth of the Paul amendment’s language — Congress recently enacted a bill that includes a one-time payment for the widow of the late Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ), which is a typical practice when a member of Congress dies in office. Under Paul’s very broad constitutional language, however, a law that is applicable to just one citizen — in this case, Bonnie Englebardt Lautenberg — must also be “equally applicable” to members of Congress. Thus, every member of Congress could sue to demand that they also receive a payment equal to the death benefit paid to Lautenberg’s widow. Under Paul’s broad language, such a lawsuit could very well succeed.
Nor is this problem unique to one-off laws providing benefits to individual citizens. Federal Medicare law excludes most Americans under the age of 65 from receiving benefits. But if the Constitution explicitly prohibits laws that are “applicable to a citizen of the United States” but “not equally applicable to Congress,” then it is not at all clear that federal law can deny Medicare benefits to any member of Congress so long as those benefits are enjoyed by any U.S. citizen. Medicare benefits are “applicable” to Americans over 65, so they must also be “applicable” to members of Congress. The same could be true about Social Security benefits. And food stamps. And veterans benefits. And federal employee retirement benefits.
Indeed, Paul’s amendment is so broadly drafted that it could immediately grant to every member of Congress every single benefit offered to anyone at all under federal law. Because Medal of Honor recipients currently receive a monthly pension of $1,259 as a reward for their service, members of Congress could potentially also have to receive this pension, despite having done nothing to earn it.
Admittedly, the intent of Paul’s amendment is to limit the privileges afforded to members of Congress, not to transform them into recipients of the most generous and unnecessary welfare program in American history. So it is possible that the courts would ignore the literal meaning of the amendment and interpret it narrowly to merely forbid laws that give special privileges to lawmakers. Even this interpretation is problematic, however.
To give just one example, Senate Rule XXIII prohibits all but a short list of mostly high-ranking government officials from being present on the Senate floor while the body is in session. Under Paul’s amendment, however, if just one citizen is barred from setting foot on the Senate floor, then this bar must also be “equally applicable” to the senators themselves. Conceivably, Congress could rectify this situation by opening the Senate floor up to everyone, but it would be virtually impossible to conduct legislative business if literally any U.S. citizen — or, perhaps, thousands of them at a time — could rush the Senate floor.
Paul is well-known for his idiosyncratic understanding of the Constitution. He once praised a widely reviled Supreme Court decision that would protect employers seeking to exploit their workers, and he labeled whites-only lunch counters the “hard part about believing in freedom.” Given his tendency to read our founding document and see things there that few other people see, it’s probably a bad idea for him to draft new amendments to add onto that document — even if those amendments actually do what he says they will do.