Obama's Last Ditch Effort

With one week left before the midterm elections, Obama's senior advisers can now see the contours of a landscape they all concede is vastly different from the one they traversed just two years ago.

But the news, they insist, is not all bad. Despite widespread predictions of a Republican blowout, Obama's team claims that early voting data and the latest polling shows hills as well as valleys. "It's not consistent," said one senior Obama aide. "In places where we have a strong turnout operation, we'll do OK and better than expected. Pennsylvania, Ohio and even Illinois is improving. In other places, where the turnout operation is weak, we're in trouble."

"Many of the House districts," the aide said, as a matter of fact.

Sure enough, in Senate races across the country, the contests have grown closer in these final weeks. In Colorado, the recently appointed Senator Michael Bennet has closed a high single-digit deficit against Republican Ken Buck to turn the race into a technical dead heat. In Pennsylvania, Democrat Joe Sestak has done something similar to cut his deficit against Republican Pat Toomey.

But elsewhere, the trend seems to be running in the other direction. In Obama's home state of Illinois, his friend Alexi Giannoulias is struggling to close a small but consistent gap against Republican Mark Kirk. That race, like so many others, remains well within the polls' margin of error.

So it's no surprise that President Obama's final campaign swing next weekend takes in Philadelphia and Chicago. What's less expected: He's ending his tour in Cleveland, where Democrats hope a strong late showing by Governor Ted Strickland could help tip the balance in a handful of House races in a battleground state that continues to tilt toward the GOP.

In searching for hopeful signs on a bleak horizon, Obama's team also points to surveys showing a huge portion of the voting population that remains undecided. According to a recent Associated Press poll, as many as one third of likely voters are undecided and say they could change their mind. Of those persuadable voters, 45 percent favor Republicans versus 38 percent who favor Democrats. Two years ago, just 14 percent of voters were undecided at this point, according to another Associated Press poll.

Those late deciders could easily break for the GOP, or choose to sit out the midterms altogether, and just stay home. But the large number of undecideds remains a key factor in the volatility of polling—and predicting elections—at this late stage of the 2010 cycle.

Where would that be?

The president's political aides attribute the tightening of many races across the country to the Democrats' efforts to sharpen the contrast with their Tea Party-influenced Republican rivals—and play up the flood of money into GOP coffers from wealthy individuals and corporations.

"The messaging has been working," said one senior Obama adviser. "It has started over the last couple of months to reenergize Democrats, to present this election as a very clear choice about moving the country forward or taking it back to giving free rein to the special interests, to let them write the rules of the economy that brought it to the brink of disaster.

"You have a weakened Republican brand, a weakened Republican image in this country, where voters don't trust Republicans. Ordinary working voters don't trust Republicans to put their interests ahead of big corporate interests, which are funding their campaigns. They know they have written their own rules and it's the Republicans who have tried to protect the interests of companies like BP, when President Obama required BP to pay every dime of the damage that was done. It was Republicans who voted against financial protection for consumers and against reform of credit-card companies. The American people know that."

The Obama team's hopes have been revived in California—a solidly Democratic state—where their own candidates have been outspent heavily, yet continue to hold slender leads. If the pundits' predictions of a wave election were true, they say, California would be long gone, given the amount of cash spent on TV advertising for Republican candidates.

That leaves Democrats with the limited comfort of arguing on November 3rd that Republicans have fallen short of their own sky-high expectations, even as they gain dozens of seats in the House. "We've got expectations exactly where we want them," said one senior Obama aide.

That may be wishful thinking. Whatever happens on Nov. 2, the White House political team is already busy mapping strategy for the next phase of Obama's presidency.

The White House plans to test Republicans' unity and political resolve on three controversial issues: repealing the Bush tax cuts, implementing the deficit commission's findings, and pushing immigration reform. Obama's team says that these issues will make for good policy—and good politics, forcing Republicans elected in swing districts to choose between placating Democrats and independents and risking a possible Tea Party challenge in 2012.

The White House believes immigration reform may be the toughest test for the GOP—even tougher than tackling the deficit. "This will separate the reasonable Republicans from the pack running for president," said one senior Obama aide.

Poll's Show GOP in Position to Win

Republicans hold a significant lead among likely voters on a generic congressional ballot heading into the last week of the campaign, according to a new Gallup Poll.

Gallup's model of a high-turnout scenario — where more than 40 percent of the electorate votes — shows Republicans leading 52 percent to 43 percent. If fewer than 40 percent of voters turn out, the GOP lead jumps to 14 points, 55 percent to 41 percent.

Gallup Editor-in-Chief Frank Newport said the data show Republicans remain “in position to win control of the House of Representatives in next week's midterm elections.”

The poll shows Democrats trail Republicans by only 4 percentage points among registered voters.

“Republicans have held the upper hand all year in terms of enthusiasm and turnout, giving their candidates clear advantages among likely voters,” Newport wrote. “Democrats appear to have closed that gap a little, particularly when the last four days of Gallup's interviewing are taken into account, and are thus doing slightly better in Gallup's voting estimates.”

The data are based on two polls conducted Oct. 14-17 and Oct. 21-24. For the registered voter sample, 2,746 registered voters were surveyed, with a margin of error of plus or minus 2 percentage points. Gallup surveyed 1,989 likely voters, the sample for which comes with a margin of error of plus or minus 3 points.

Obama Approval Rating at All Time Low

President Barack Obama's approval rating has dropped more than 18 points since taking office to an all-time low of 44.7 percent, according to a new Gallup poll.

The results of the poll, released Thursday, average approval ratings from more than 90 thousand respondents during the third quarter of 2010, July 20 through October 19. Only three presidents since 1954—Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, and Jimmy Carter—received lower marks in the seventh quarter of their presidencies.

More Americans also say they don't think Obama deserves a second term in office, 54 percent, to 39 percent who say the president should be reelected. Only 38 percent of respondents in a 1994 Gallup survey said they thought Clinton deserved a second term, but the president earned a decisive 49-point victory in the 1996 elections; former President George W. Bush enjoyed reelection support from 62 percent of respondents in a 2002 survey, before going on to his second term in 2004.

These numbers may tell more of a story than just the prospect of a second term. Seventh-quarter approval ratings in every president's term come just before critical midterm elections. Republicans made huge congressional gains on their "Contract With America" campaign in 1994, when Clinton's approval and reelect ratings were low. The GOP held steady under Bush in 2002's midterms.

Obama's low ratings are likely unwelcome news to Democrats, who are fighting to keep Republicans from winning the 39 House seats and 10 Senate seats needed to gain control of Congress.

Violence on the Table

WASHINGTON – Republican congressional candidate Stephen Broden stunned his party Thursday, saying he would not rule out violent overthrow of the government if elections did not produce a change in leadership.

In a rambling exchange during a TV interview, Broden, a South Dallas pastor, said a violent uprising "is not the first option," but it is "on the table." That drew a quick denunciation from the head of the Dallas County GOP, who called the remarks "inappropriate."

Broden, a first-time candidate, is challenging veteran incumbent Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson in Dallas' heavily Democratic 30th Congressional District. Johnson's campaign declined to comment on Broden.

In the interview, Brad Watson, political reporter for WFAA-TV (Channel 8), asked Broden about a tea party event last year in Fort Worth in which he described the nation's government as tyrannical.

"We have a constitutional remedy," Broden said then. "And the Framers say if that don't work, revolution."

Watson asked if his definition of revolution included violent overthrow of the government. In a prolonged back-and-forth, Broden at first declined to explicitly address insurrection, saying the first way to deal with a repressive government is to "alter it or abolish it."

"If the government is not producing the results or has become destructive to the ends of our liberties, we have a right to get rid of that government and to get rid of it by any means necessary," Broden said, adding the nation was founded on a violent revolt against Britain's King George III.

Watson asked if violence would be in option in 2010, under the current government.

"The option is on the table. I don't think that we should remove anything from the table as it relates to our liberties and our freedoms," Broden said, without elaborating. "However, it is not the first option."

Reactions

Jonathan Neerman, head of the Dallas County Republican Party, said he's never heard Broden or other local Republican candidates advocate violence against the government.

"It is a disappointing, isolated incident," Neerman said. He said he plans to discuss the matter with Broden's campaign.

Ken Emanuelson, a Broden supporter and leading tea party organizer in Dallas, said he did not disagree with the "philosophical point" that people had the right to resist a tyrannical government.

But, he said, "Do I see our government today anywhere close to that point? No, I don't."

Emanuelson said he's occasionally heard people call for direct action against the government, but that they typically do not get involved in electoral politics.

That Broden is "engaged in the election and running for office shows he's got faith in the system as it is," Emanuelson said.

Other statements

Also in the interview, Broden backed away from other controversial statements he has made at rallies and on cable news appearances.

In June 2009, he described the economic crash in the housing, banking and automotive industries as "contrived" and a "set up" by the Obama administration.

Asked Thursday about the validity of these, Broden said they were "authentic crises facing this nation."

Broden also retreated from other remarks last year that chided Americans for not being more outraged over government intrusion, comparing them to Jews "walking into the furnaces" under the Nazi regime in Germany.

"They are our enemies, and we must resist them," he said of government leaders.

Broden said Thursday that he wasn't trying to compare President Barack Obama to Hitler and he mistakenly linked the U.S. in 2010 to Nazi Germany.

In the uphill campaign against Johnson, Broden has sought to capitalize on her misuse of scholarship funds from the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, a nonprofit entity.

In late August, The Dallas Morning News reported that Johnson provided 23 scholarships over five years to two of her grandsons, two children of her nephew, and two children of her top aide in Dallas. None of those recipients were eligible under the foundation's anti-nepotism rules or residency requirements. She has repaid the foundation more than $31,000.

Election Rules

HOUSTON -- A voter who went to the polls Thursday at an early-voting location south of the Texas Medical Center served as this mid-term election’s reminder to keep your politically-themed clothing at home.

"This is ridiculous,” Tamika Francis told 11 News as she stood outside the Fiesta grocery store at Main and Kirby where she had just been denied the right to vote.

“That’s not going to roll with me. Is it going to roll with you?” she asked her mom who had travelled to the polling location with her.

The problem is that Francis was wearing a 2008 Obama election shirt. It has photos of the first family during the campaign accompanied by the phrase “Our President Obama.” The presiding elections judge told her she could not vote, nor could she help her disabled mother vote, until she either turned the shirt inside out or covered it up to hide the message and photos.

"He is not a candidate in the Texas election,” Francis said. “So why are you denying me the right to vote?"

Her mother agreed.

"And to say a person cannot vote because they have a T-shirt with the President of the United States on that T-shirt, that is not right,” Sandra Lucas Francis said.

"I said let me see in writing where it says I cannot wear this shirt,” Tamika Francis added.

"It's titled Electioneering Prohibited,” said Hector de Leon, spokesman for the Harris County Clerk as he read Texas Election code 85.036. The code, dating back to 1985, stipulates that “during the time of an early voting polling place is open for the conduct of early voting, a person may not electioneer for or against any candidate, measure, or political party in or within 100 feet of an outside door through which a voter may enter the building or structure in which the early voting polling place is located.”

Likenesses of President Obama fall within those prohibitions given that he is the most visible leader of, and one of the most active campaigners for, the Democratic Party.

"When you are actually going into a poll that has his picture on it you're essentially promoting a party,” said de Leon.

And this week there have been similar reports from Dallas and Waco, where voters wearing Tea Party shirts or buttons are also being turned away until they remove their party paraphernalia.

Tamika Francis, meanwhile, doesn't yet fully accept the explanation, but said she is sure of one thing.

“I'm not going to give up. I'm going to vote,” she said.

Elections organizers said her experience should serve as a reminder to everyone, whichever political party, candidate, or cause they support that any and all political clothing, buttons, or other elections-themed clothing must be left at home.

U.S. to Sell Saudi Arabia $60 Billion in Arms

WASHINGTON—The Obama administration notified Congress it plans to sell Saudi Arabia up to $60 billion in advanced military aircraft, including F-15s equipped with bunker-buster bombs that Washington sees as part of an effort to contain Iran.

The package, the largest overseas U.S. arms deal to date, "supports our wider regional security goals in the Gulf" without undercutting ally Israel's military edge, Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs Andrew Shapiro said.

"We want to make sure that they have the tools that they need to be able to defend themselves," he said of Saudi Arabia, a key regional ally. The kingdom had no immediate comment.

Some details of the proposed sale have been known for months, but the inclusion of up to 1,000 one-ton bombs known as Joint Direct Attack Munitions, or JDAMs, and other guided bombs in the package, was revealed in notifications to Congress on Wednesday.

The inclusion of these weapons would enhance the capability of Saudi Arabia's air force to bomb hardened bunkers and tunnels, such as those that the West believes are used by Iran to hide nuclear and ballistic missile programs.

The administration said Saudi Arabia would be authorized to buy as many as 84 new F-15 advanced fighters and to upgrade up to 70 existing Saudi F-15s to a more advanced configuration.

Congress could block or amend the sale, but officials said that isn't expected. A small group of lawmakers said they will try to block the deal, arguing it would undercut Israel and support a government with a poor human-rights record.

The package includes an upgraded fleet of attack helicopters that U.S. officials say could be used by the Saudis to bolster border security with Yemen—home to an al Qaeda affiliate of increasing concern to the U.S.—and protect key oil installations.

U.S. officials said the $60 billion figure is an estimate. Saudi Arabia is expected to commit initially to spending about $30 billion, but could come back later to purchase the rest.

Under the package, the Saudis would upgrade its attack helicopter fleet with up to 70 AH-64D Apache Longbows, 72 UH-60 Black Hawks, 36 AH-6i light attack helicopters and 12 MD-530F light turbine helicopters.

The F-15s would be equipped with advanced radar systems and could be armed with an array of missiles—up to 600 High-Speed Anti-Radiation Missiles used to knock out enemy air defenses, 400 Harpoons used against ships, and 300 air-to-air Sidewinders. The number of 2,000-pound guided bombs in the package tops 3,000.

The package could be followed by separate arms deals to provide the Saudis with naval and ballistic missile defense upgrades worth an additional $30 billion or more, officials said.

Rep. Anthony Weiner, a New York Democrat, accused the administration of trying to slip the Saudi deal through Congress while lawmakers were on recess to campaign for the November election. "It's bad policy that now is further tainted by a shameful process," said Mr. Weiner, a leading critic of arms sales to the Saudis. "This deal would destabilize the Middle East and undermine the security of Israel, our one true ally in the region."

Congress will return, however, before the 30-day review period ends. And while Israeli defense officials expressed some misgivings about the sales, they have said they won't oppose it. U.S. officials said Israel was consulted as the package took shape. U.S. officials say the Israelis are increasingly comfortable with the sale because of the planes will not have certain long-range weapons systems. Also, the Israelis are in line to buy a more advanced fighter, the F-35, which could start arriving in Israel in 2015, the same year the Saudis would start to get the F-15s.

Boeing Co., which makes the F-15s and the Apaches, says the Saudi package would directly or indirectly support 77,000 jobs across 44 states, according to U.S. officials.

It is unclear how many jobs, if any, would be supported by the Saudi purchase of Black Hawks, made by Sikorsky. Production levels are already high at Sikorsky, which is owned by United Technologies Co.

Marijuana Crushes Grape Profits in Cali

The most persuasive argument for legalizing pot might just be a dollar sign.

California's pot crop is worth $14 billion, according to a state report. The Press Democrat points out that crushes the wine crop which comes in at $2 billion.

Legalization would be a huge shot in the arm for plenty of ancillary industries, such as banking and construction.

Of course, there's always the possibility that the federal government would crack down. That risk might make investors too skittish to get involved. Earlier this month, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the government would continue its dangerous raids.

Some regions, such as Mendocino County, have leaned on pot agriculture as other industries dried up. It's estimated that at least half of that county's economy depends on cultivation of the plant.

The only sure thing is that there's no sure thing. Marijuana legalization is uncharted territory. Or at least, it's uncharted in this country. Other countries have managed to figure it out, but here in The Land of the Free, we've clung to prohibition.

Earlier, the state estimated that it could rake in $1.4 billion in taxes if Prop 19 passes, but they've since backed off that estimate, claiming that there are too many unknown variables. Prop 19 would allow each individual municipality to set its own pot regulations, which some detractors have said will create an unwieldy patchwork of laws. Coincidentally, most of those who oppose legalization are those who make money from prohibition: law enforcement agencies and the alcohol industry.

Meanwhile, the San Francisco Patient and Resource Center has established a gleaming treatment center for medical usage. The attractive, safe space has turned into big business, luring patients from around the city by offering extras like meditation classes, social events, and art.

U.S. Says Military Can Respond to Domestic Cyberterror Threats

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration has adopted new procedures for using the Defense Department’s vast array of cyberwarfare capabilities in case of an attack on vital computer networks inside the United States, delicately navigating historic rules that restrict military action on American soil.

The system would mirror that used when the military is called on in natural disasters like hurricanes or wildfires. A presidential order dispatches the military forces, working under the control of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Under the new rules, the president would approve the use of the military’s expertise in computer-network warfare, and the Department of Homeland Security would direct the work.

Officials involved in drafting the rules said the goal was to ensure a rapid response to a cyberthreat while balancing concerns that civil liberties might be at risk should the military take over such domestic operations.

The rules were deemed essential because most of the government’s computer-network capabilities reside within the Pentagon — while most of the important targets are on domestic soil, whether within the government or in critical private operations like financial networks or a regional power grid.

The new approach will begin with a Department of Homeland Security team deploying to Fort Meade, Md., home to both the National Security Agency, which specializes in electronic espionage, and the military’s new Cyber Command. In exchange, a team of military networking experts would be assigned to the operations center at the Homeland Security Department.

The rules were detailed in a memorandum of agreement signed in late September by Janet Napolitano, the secretary of homeland security, and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, but they were not released until last week.

Robert J. Butler, the Pentagon’s deputy assistant secretary for cyber policy, said the memorandum was intended to cut through legal debates about the authority for operating domestically, and to focus on how best to respond to the threat of attack on critical computer networks.

Mr. Butler said teams of lawyers would watch for potential violations of civil liberties. “We have put protection measures in place,” he said.

The Pentagon is expected to release a full National Defense Strategy for Cyber Operations this year, to be followed by broader interagency guidance from the White House, perhaps in the form of a presidential directive, in 2011.

Congress also is weighing legislation that would update domestic law to deal with advances in computer-based surveillance and cyberwarfare.

William J. Lynn III, the deputy defense secretary, underscored the Pentagon’s “need to protect our military networks,” but said that “it’s a national challenge as well.” In an interview with Charlie Rose broadcast Monday by PBS, Mr. Lynn added: “We need to protect our critical infrastructure. We need to protect our intellectual property. And that’s a whole-of-government effort.”

During a visit last week to NATO headquarters in Brussels, Mr. Gates lobbied for new partnerships to combat computer threats, while warning that the NATO networks were vulnerable.

“On cybersecurity, the alliance is far behind,” Mr. Gates said. “Our vulnerabilities are well known, but our existing programs to remedy these weaknesses are inadequate.”

Mr. Gates said he was not concerned that secret intelligence shared with allies would be compromised, but he said NATO had weaknesses in its defenses for computer networks at its headquarters and throughout the shared command structure.

First Human Treated with Stem Cells

Doctors have injected millions of human embryonic stem cells into a patient partially paralyzed by a spinal cord injury, marking the beginning of the first carefully designed attempt to test the promising but controversial therapy, officials announced Monday.

The patient was treated Friday at the Shepherd Center, a 132-bed hospital in Atlanta that specializes in spinal cord and brain injuries, according to announcement by the hospital and Geron Corp. of Menlo Park, Calif., which is sponsoring the research.

The hospital is one of seven sites participating in the study, which is primarily aimed at testing whether the therapy is safe. Doctors will also conduct tests to see whether the treatment restores sensation or enables the patient to regain movement. No additional information about the first patient was released.

The milestone was welcomed by scientists eager to finally move the research from the laboratory to the clinic, as well as by advocates for patients and by patients hoping for cures. Although the cells have been tested in animals, and some clinics around the world claim to offer therapies using human embryonic stem cells, the trial is the first to have been vetted by a government entity and aimed at carefully evaluating the strategy. After repeated delays, the Food and Drug Administration gave the go-ahead in July.

But the move was criticized by those with moral objections to any research using cells from human embryos, and it is raising concern even among many proponents. Some argue that the experiments are premature, others question whether they are ethical, and many fear that the trials risk disaster for the field if anything goes awry.

"Without knowing more clinical detail, there's little I can say," said Steve Goldman, chairman of the department of neurology at the University of Rochester in New York. "In more general terms . . . I remain concerned about the long-term safety of unpurified grafts of embryonic stem cell derivatives. Time will tell."

David Prentice, senior fellow for life sciences at the Family Research Council, said: "Geron is helping their stock price, not science and especially not patients. It will be years before there is hard evidence about safety or effectiveness. Adult stem cells have published evidence documenting effective treatment of spinal cord injury."

Supporters of the privately funded research are confident that it has been exhaustively vetted. The FDA has demanded extensive experiments in the laboratory and on animals to provide evidence that the cells hold promise and are safe enough to test in people.

"Initiating the . . . clinical trial is a milestone for the field of human embryonic stem cell-based therapies," said Thomas B. Okarma, Geron's president and chief executive, in a statement. "This accomplishment results from extensive research and development and a succession of inventive steps."

Donald Peck Leslie, Shepherd's medical director, said: "We are pleased to have our patients participating in this exciting research. Our medical staff will evaluate the patients' progress as part of this study. We look forward to participating in clinical trials that may help people with spinal cord injury."

But some scientists worry that if patients are hurt by the cells - or even if there's no hint that the cells help - it could be a devastating blow to the field. They cite the case of Jesse Gelsinger, whose 1999 death from a gene therapy experiment set that once-highly touted field back years.

Safety worries - most prominently fears that the cells could cause tumors - prompted the FDA to repeatedly demand additional data from Geron, including, most recently, assurance that cysts that developed in mice injected with the cells posed no threat.

Although Geron eventually hopes to test the cells for many different medical problems, the first trial will involve 10 patients who were partially paralyzed by a spinal cord injury in the previous one to two weeks. Surgeons injected the first patient with about 2 million "oligodendrocyte progenitor cells," created from embryonic stem cells, in the hopes that the cells will form a restorative coating around the damaged spinal cord. In tests in hundreds of rats, partially paralyzed animals walked.

Spinal cord injuries, however, are highly unpredictable. Patients often improve on their own, for example, making it difficult to evaluate whether the cells had any effect. Some wonder whether trauma victims who have so recently suffered a life-altering injury will agree to the experiments out of desperation without fully grasping the risks. There is also concern that the therapy risks worsening the patients' conditions, perhaps making them fully paralyzed.

But company officials said they are confident. Even if problems occur, research shows that the cells do not leave the site of the injury, indicating that patients would not suffer any ill effects, Okarma said. Extra precautions, including assigning each subject an independent advocate, will guarantee that volunteers fully understand their decisions, he said.

In the meantime, officials at Advanced Cell Technology of Santa Monica, Calif., are hoping for the FDA's go-ahead to start injecting 50,000 to 200,000 cells into the eyes of 12 patients with Stargardt's macular dystrophy. "Retinal pigmented epithelial cells," also made from human embryonic stem cells, should replace those ravaged by the progressive loss of eyesight, which usually begins in childhood. Studies in rats found that the cells helped prevent further vision loss and even restored some sight. The company hopes that the approach will work for many conditions, including macular degeneration, the leading cause of blindness among the elderly.

The announcement comes as the future of federal funding for embryonic stem cell research remains in doubt. A federal judge ruled in August that the Obama administration's more permissive policy for funding the research violated a federal law prohibiting taxpayer money being used for research that involves the destruction of human embryos. The Justice Department is appealing the decision.

Democrats Attempt at Full Disclosure for Donors

Democrats and their allies are broadening their attacks on campaign spending by pro-Republican groups, hoping to force the disclosure of donors' identities and curtail a lucrative source of financing for their rivals.

Liberal activist group MoveOn.org and nonprofit groups Public Citizen and Public Campaign plan to press media outlets that run campaign advertising to question whether the cash used for the ad buys is legal for that purpose.

The groups are also asking the U.S. Department of Justice and Internal Revenue Service to investigate the pro-Republican groups and the sources of their ad spending.

"We're going to keep hounding every group we can, filing complaints with the IRS, using every avenue we can to keep the spotlight on them, and hopefully someone's going to come forward" and name donors, says Public Citizen chief lobbyist Craig Holman.

Honing a campaign message, President Barack Obama and Democratic Party officials have in recent days strongly suggested the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other groups, including two run by Republican strategist Karl Rove, are illegally using money from foreign nationals or companies to fund U.S. political advertising.

The groups have repeatedly denied the charges.

The line of attack is prompting some Washington strategists to tell foreign-owned corporations to stay clear of the Nov. 2 midterm elections. It is legal for U.S. units of an overseas corporations to make independent campaign expenditures, as long as all decisions on its spending is made by U.S. citizens.

"It's a difficult enough economic environment without being targeted as a bad guy," said Joshua Zive, campaign finance attorney at Bracewell & Giuliani LLP in Washington, adding he has passed that advice on to a dozen foreign-owned companies. "There is a broad concern that the domestic subsidiaries of foreign parent companies are a convenient target to demagogue."

The White House has said its goal is to pressure the groups into naming their backers. The Chamber's chief lobbyist Bruce Josten said, "We are seeing an attempt to demonize specific groups and distract Americans from a failed economic agenda."

The political clash centers on a Supreme Court ruling in January that allows companies and unions to make unlimited independent campaign spending on behalf of a candidate.

In an election year that favors the GOP, much of this corporate spending has gone to GOP-leaning non-profit groups, including the Chamber, which aren't required to disclose the source of their donations. For the first time in years, cash from the right is close to drawing even with cash raised by unions.

The reluctance to spend appears more widespread among big corporations, which tend to be relatively conservative, supporting incumbents and dividing political spending between both parties.

"We are responsible to our shareholders, and there are a number of us who are just going to avoid this election and focus instead on lobbying spending when the composition of Congress is clear," said a chief executive who is a member of the Business Roundtable, which is made up of the nation's biggest listed corporations. Unlike the chamber, the roundtable does not spend money on elections.

Some companies are confining themselves to spending by less-controversial political action committees-corporate bodies funded by employee contributions-which are limited to $5,000 per candidate per election.

A political action committee "is not an instrument to execute a political strategy as much as it is to develop relationships and goodwill," said Erick Gustafson, director of government relations at consultants Marsh & McLennan Companies Inc. which has decided not to make any independent expenditures.

Mr. Gustafson runs the firm's political action committee, which will contribute about $200,000 this election year, to Democrats and Republicans.

SCOTUS to Hear Vaccine Case

WASHINGTON, Oct 12 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court will begin hearing arguments later on Tuesday in a case that could shake up protections aimed at keeping vaccine makers in business.

The high court has agreed to hear a Pennsylvania case involving a lawsuit by the parents of Hannah Bruesewitz, now 18, who suffered seizures after her third dose of a diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DTP) vaccine, one of the regular childhood vaccines.

Normally, such cases are referred to a special no-fault program that compensates people genuinely harmed by vaccines. In this case, the parents, Russell and Robalee Bruesewitz, sued the vaccine manufacturer, Wyeth, now owned by Pfizer Inc (PFE.N).

They say the vaccine has an outmoded and flawed design and contained toxins that caused the seizures. They say Hannah has suffered developmental problems since then.

At issue is the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986.

Congress passed the law to prevent repeated lawsuits against vaccine makers and says no manufacturer is liable for injuries from "side effects that were unavoidable even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warnings."

The question before the court is whether suits over the design of a vaccine may bypass the vaccine compensation system.

State courts have issued conflicting rulings on the question.

The Georgia Supreme Court found that federal law allows some design defect claims against vaccine manufacturers while a U.S. appeals court in Philadelphia ruled Congress expressly prohibited such lawsuits in an effort to shield manufacturers from liability.

President Barack Obama's administration agrees federal law prevents such design defect lawsuits in state courts. The Department of Justice filed a friend of the court brief asking the Supreme Court to rule against the Bruesewitz family.

Public health experts argue vaccines are vital to the health of the nation as a whole and say no drug company will make them if they must fear repeated lawsuits.

"Withdrawal of a vaccine is particularly damaging because vaccines are administered not only to immunize individuals, but also 'to reduce transmission of infection and thereby to prevent disease even in non-vaccinated individuals, thus to protect communities,'" the Justice Department argues.

The vaccine injury program has a pot of money, provided by a tax on vaccines, to pay people genuinely injured by vaccines.

Pfizer has said it was "hopeful that the Supreme Court will affirm" the Philadelphia appeals court ruling in Wyeth's favor.

Big Brother Settles Out of Court

See old post for the case:

http://lhsthirdfloor.blogspot.com/2010/02/school-spies-on-students-at-home.html

Lower Merion School District has settled the webcam case that made national headlines after students accused school officials of spying by using the webcam installed on school-issued laptops.

The School District Board approved a $610,000 settlement Monday night.

Board President David Ebby explained on the district website why they settled:

We believe this settlement enables us to move forward in a way that is most sensitive to our students, taxpayers and the entire school district community. The agreement is comprehensive, and effectively resolves all components of the laptop litigation, including the Robbins and Hasan cases and the Graphic Arts insurance case. It is the product of a lengthy, court-ordered mediation involving the active participation of Judge DuBois and Chief Magistrate Judge Reuter. The terms of the agreement have been thoroughly reviewed in a number of executive sessions over the past few weeks. Throughout the entire process, the Board has aggressively sought to protect the interests of our taxpayers.

Earlier this summer, the U.S. Attorney's Office, the FBI and the Montgomery County District Attorney cleared the District, and its employees - current and former -- of any criminal wrongdoing. That was an important moment for us -- it confirmed the results of an independent investigation and the District's own initial findings. The District acknowledged and apologized for any mistakes and addressed them immediately. We revised our policies and procedures, reaffirmed our commitment to technology and put safeguards into place to ensure the privacy of our students, staff and school families.

Ebby claimed that a recent insurance agreement played a large part in the timing of the settlement:

A major impetus behind settling this matter now is the recent agreement by our insurance carrier, Graphic Arts, to cover more than $1.2M of the fees and costs associated with this litigation to date. The proposed settlement costs include $175,000 to be placed in a trust for Blake Robbins, $10,000 for Jalil Hassan and $425,000 for plaintiff's counsel. This settlement is not under seal because as a public entity, we have a responsibility to report all terms of the agreement.

Back in February investigators began to look into WebcamGate after Harriton High School student Blake Robbins and his parents filed a lawsuit accusing officials of remotely taking video and photos through Robbins’ school-issued MacBook.

As many as 1,800 Lower Merion School District students from Lower Merion and Harriton High Schools were given the MacBook notebooks as part of a school program.

The case gained national attention and put into question Harriton’s and Lower Merion’s laptop program.

Today Marks 9th Anniversary in Afghan War

(AFGHANISTAN) -- Thursday marks nine years since the war in Afghanistan began. U.S. troops invaded the country after the Sept. 11 terror attacks in an effort to defeat Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

Afghan political analyst Haroon Mir says fighting this war is difficult because Pakistan protects Taliban leaders. He tells ABC News Radio, "It is very difficult to defeat this insurgency just by killing rank and file, low-level Taliban fighters. There's no pressure on Taliban leadership, there's no pressure on their financial network, on their training camps."

Mir adds that the Taliban has lasted in the war because they can easily replace their fighters, saying, "They could sustain this kind of war because recruiting low-level Taliban fighters is not a problem because there are so many madrassas. At these madrassas they could recruit thousands and thousands of new Taliban fighters each year."

SCOTUS Opens Session With Speech Case

WASHINGTON — — While members of Westboro Baptist Church waved a sign outside the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday thanking God for dead soldiers, the nine justices inside tried to define the line at which such public protests become personal attacks during arguments in an emotionally charged case prompted by the picketing of a Maryland Marine's funeral.

Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder was 20 years old when he was killed in a Humvee accident in Iraq on March 3, 2006. A week later, publicity-seeking members of the fire-and-brimstone Kansas congregation — all strangers to the Snyders — appeared at his family's Catholic funeral service in Westminster with posters proclaiming sentiments like "God Hates America" and "Semper Fi Fags." They later posted online a diatribe blaming Snyder's death on the sins of the country and his divorced parents.

Snyder's father sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress and initially won, though the multimillion-dollar verdict was overturned on appeal. That series of legal decisions vaulted the Maryland case to the country's highest court, where it's testing the boundaries of the First Amendment and putting liberal free-speech advocates in the position of siding with fringe Christians.

"The First Amendment is something that's so critical that it may, in this case, just trump the behavior that most people feel is pretty outrageous," said Carl Tobias, a professor at the University of Richmond School of Law.

The case put several specific questions before the court — addressing the rights of private versus public figures, whether free speech is more important than freedom of religion and peaceful assembly, and whether a funeral constitutes a captive audience that needs protection from certain communication. But at its heart are issues of intellectual freedom and human decency.

Snyder's lawyer, Sean E. Summers, said that the funeral protest was a targeted attack that stripped a family of its right to bury their son with dignity, causing the young man's father physical and mental harm by worsening his diabetes and depression.

"The private, targeted nature of the speech … is what makes it unprotected," Summers said.

But Westboro's side, presented by the lawyer-daughter of the Topeka church's founder, countered with claims that they were simply a "little church" preaching on issues of public interest at a public forum that was likely to draw attention.