Omstreden bill in Wisconsin is erdoor, en nu?

quote:

Congressman Wants YouTube Video Covered Up

"Wisconsin Republicans claim that no one else can republish a video of United States Representative Sean Duffy (R-WI) complaining about how he is 'struggling' to get by on his $174,000 salary without their permission, even though they originally released the video on YouTube for the whole world to see. Now the GOP is trying to take legal action to stop anyone else from republishing the video. The tape caused a stir for Duffy, a first-term conservative best known for his past as a reality TV show star on MTV's The Real World after Democrats flagged the comments about his taxpayer-funded salary, which is nearly three times the median income in Wisconsin, and criticisms began to flow Duffy's way. Here is a one minute clip, excerpted from roughly 45 minutes of video of the public Duffy townhall, that the Polk County GOP doesn't want anyone to see."

quote:

Goldman Sachs CEO's pay nearly doubles despite slump in profits

An era of bonus "restraint" at Goldman Sachs came to a shuddering halt as the Wall Street bank almost doubled the pay package of its chief executive, Lloyd Blankfein, to $18.6m (£11.5m) for 2010 in spite of a slump in profits.

Blankfein, 56, who once quipped that his firm does "God's work", received share awards of $12.6m on top of a $5.4m performance-related cash bonus, and a salary of $600,000. He also received additional benefits worth $464,000, according to a filing by Goldman at the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The postal worker's son from Brooklyn became a lightning rod for controversy over the banking industry's excesses during the financial crisis. Goldman was obliged to pay $550m in July to settle fraud charges laid by US prosecutors over the alleged mis-selling of toxic mortgage-related derivatives. Blankfein described being hit by the charges as "one of the worst days in my professional life".

Blankfein's pay was still far below the record $68m that he received for 2007, before the credit crunch began to bite. But his earnings are almost double last year's $9.8m – when Goldman declared it was exercising "restraint" in response to public and political pressure over the size of bonuses.

"The fact that they would return to a more market-based pay is probably not surprising," Rose Marie Orens, a senior partner at Compensation Advisory Partners in New York, told Bloomberg News. "They're not quite back to anything remotely like what they paid in prior years."

It was the first time in three years that Goldman paid a cash bonus to Blankfein. His top lieutenants – including chief financial officer David Viniar and chief operating officer Gary Cohn – got identical $5.4m payouts. This was despite a 38% drop in profits to $7.71bn due to a sharp fall in income from trading and investment banking.

Goldman is renowned for being the most hard-driving bank on Wall Street. It has a fiercely competitive ethos but rewards its employees better than any of its rivals. Unlike other top banks, it sensed the imminent implosion in US mortgages in 2007 and heavily hedged its position to protect itself against the credit crunch. Its bonus pool, shared by 35,700 employees worldwide,, including 5,000 in London, amounted to $15.3bn this year – equivalent to nearly $430,000 per person.

Blankfein's remuneration comfortably outstrips the £6.5m bonus paid to Barclays' chief executive Bob Diamond, who is the highest-paid of Britain's banking chiefs. In a sign of Goldman's culture of rewards, even Blankfein's driver appears to have done well – the bank paid out $185,110 for the CEO's car and chauffeur, more than double last year's figure. And Blankfein's son, also at Goldman, was paid $170,000.

quote:

Op zondag 3 april 2011 13:24 schreef Lyrebird het volgende:
Ik weet dat logica niet je sterkste kant is PV, maar wat hebben je laatste twee bijdragen met Wisconsin te maken?

quote:

US budget: federal government faces shutdown over deadlock

Obama and Republican House Speaker fail to agree details on how £33bn cuts to government spending can be made

The US federal government faces a shutdown from Saturday after the White House and the Republican-led House failed to reach an agreement on Tuesday on budget spending cuts.

Barack Obama met the House Speaker, John Boehner, at the White House but the two were unable to bridge differences. Obama, speaking afterwards at a press conference, said the two were closer than ever before over the amount of cuts, but he blamed politics and ideology for the continued differences.

If there is no deal by Friday, the shutdown in federal services will start the following day. The armed forces and emergency services will not be affected, but there will be disruption to such things as payments to military veterans, passport applications, visits to national parks and monuments and loans to small businesses, Obama said.

The Democrats and Republicans are locked in a battle over last year's budget. Obama told the press conference that he had agreed to the $33bn (£20bn) in cuts originally sought by Boehner, but that the speaker was quibbling about the details.

The main disagreement is not over the figure but where the cuts should be made: the Republicans want reductions that would hit both Obama's healthcare plans and the environmental protection agency.

Obama and Boehner both held press conferences, intent on trying to avoid the blame for a shutdown. "The American people do not like these games," Obama said, calling on his Republican opponents to behave like grown-ups and reach a compromise.

Boehner said there was no agreement because the $33bn cuts proposed by the White House were smoke and mirrors. "There was no agreement reached so those conversations will continue," Boehner said.

Boehner is under pressure from a new Republican intake in the House who owe their victories to the Tea Party movement which campaigned for deep cuts in federal spending.

Obama offered to hold further meetings on Wednesday and Thursday with Boehner. It has been 15 years since the last US shutdown, during the Clinton administration.

In a separate development, the Republicans introduced their spending plan for the future, one that would cut the federal deficit by $5.8tn over the next decade, compared with the $1tn Obama is proposing. The Republican budget has no chance of being implemented, with Obama in the White House and the Democrats in charge of the Senate.

The Republican cuts would come from healthcare and tax reforms.

quote:

Proof The Fix Is On: Election Decided Two Days Before Polls Open

The Fix Is On: Election Decided Two Days Before Polls Open

Madison Wisconsin - Breaking News: In yet another twist to this on going saga in Wisconsin, politiscoop.com has been tipped off and given documents by Defending Wisconsin PAC that Prove that the Government Accountability Board has been in on the Supreme Court Election fix since at least April 3, 2011. According to the documents below dated APRIL 3, 2011 Justice Prosser was already granted a new term from 2011-2021 and yet this was two days before voters went to the polls. Is there some Prophet that works down at the GAB that can predict the outcome before it even happens? If so, please oh great one down at the GAB tell us who wins in 2012 and let us know when King Walker will be recalled. Anyone else find this funny? I am sure not laughing. It's not at all funny that King Walker picks his Supreme Court minion by hand, then has a County Clerk pull 7,500 votes out of her nose and last but not least the GAB already making it public 48 hours before.

Interesting math going on in Waukesha it seems that a very high percentage of the voters came out and voted Prosser. It seems 29 hours went by before the incompetent clerk Kathy Nickolaus reported the human error to Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh (Ok just guessing) but she didn't call the GAB, why is that? THEY ALREADY KNEW! Get the word out on this folks, copy/paste click the share button but do not stop sounding this alarm. There is no plausible excuse for this error on the GAB. Is Obama on 2013? I don't see that but again We will hear the excuse but can not stand for it. We need to demand a federal probe into what is going on with our Government. These papers do not lie. Get angry folks. Get Signatures for recall. Get the word out now. If you can not see the pdf below click here to read it

quote:

Koch brothers under attack by leftwing film-maker

Robert Greenwald is taking the fight to billionaires David and Charles Koch, who fund much of the US's rightwing politics

Even for the Lincoln Centre it was an unusual show, and an unscheduled one. Several hundred protesters turned up outside the arts complex on Manhattan's Upper West Side last week for the guerrilla screening of a short film. From a hotel on the other side of the street, a video was projected on to the centre's walls. The unwitting stars of the films were David and Charles Koch, the reclusive rightwing billionaire brothers whose secretive empire and network of influence and funding is emerging as a liberal rallying cause in America.

As bemused theatregoers watched the boisterous crowd, the videos depicted facts and figure showing Koch support for Tea Party groups, global warming sceptics and thinktanks seeking to strip away regulations on the environment, cut social security and oppose healthcare reform. On the David H Koch Theatre in the complex – renamed when one of the brothers donated $100m (£62m) in 2008 – activists climbed a ladder to post a giant sticker above the sign bearing Koch's name. "I am the Tea Party's wallet," it read. When the police vans finally arrived, the activists had gone.

For Koch Industries, one of the largest private businesses in America, it was another attempt by liberal groups to drag it into the public eye over accusations that it is corrupting US politics in pursuit of its business interests. There have been lengthy magazine articles investigating its activities, growing protests and a legion of bloggers scouring the company's every move.

At the forefront of the movement is the unlikely figure of Hollywood director Robert Greenwald, 65, who brought the world the Olivia Newton-John dance movie Xanadu. Greenwald reinvented himself as a leftwing documentary maker, and has his focus on the Koch brothers. His Brave New Foundation group organised the Lincoln Centre film show.

"David Koch spent $100m to put his name on that theatre, but we want people to understand what it really should be named," he told the Observer.

Brave New Foundation, with a team of 15 including three full-time researchers, is running a web competition where suggestions for a new sign are plastered over a picture of the theatre. "Treasonous Plutocrats R Us" and "Evil Greed Incarnate" are some of the entries.

Greenwald said that the popularity of the contest is another way to keep public attention on the brothers. Indeed last week Jack O'Dwyer, a leading Manhattan PR professional, called on the Lincoln Centre to drop the Koch name. That was music to Greenwald's ears. "The Kochs have always been very smart. They did not need the spotlight. But the more people we can impact with our actions showing what the Kochs have been doing, the better off we will be."

Greenwald is determined to make the fight personal. His activists have found five homes of the brothers in the US and filmed themselves knocking on the doors, from the ski resort of Aspen, Colorado, to Palm Beach in Florida. The homes are profiled in "luxury porn" detail and juxtaposed with the hard times of working-class Americans. In one scene three financially struggling pensioners picnic on the beach outside a Koch mansion and wonder why anyone would need a house so big. In another, a researcher ambushes David Koch at the Economic Club of New York and asks: "How many houses do you really need?" The stone-faced Koch rapidly retreats behind a security guard without a word.

The personal tactics have brought Greenwald criticism, but he is unconcerned. He says that the political activities and donations of the brothers have affected the lives of millions of less wealthy Americans. "The least we can do is ring their doorbell. What they are doing is hurting people's lives. Ideology has consequences."

Anger is focused on the mix of conservatism and libertarianism, especially in economics. The sprawling Koch Industries has vast oil and energy interests. The brothers, each worth an estimated $22bn, are joint seventh on Forbes magazine's 2011 list of the richest Americans.

Their money helped start Americans For Prosperity, a Tea Party-linked organisation that has campaigned vociferously against Barack Obama's healthcare reforms. It admitted helping to organise anti-union moves by the controversial Wisconsin governor Scott Walker, which led to some of the largest protests in recent American history.

The Kochs have also given millions to thinktanks and groups that fight environmental legislation, especially to oppose the scientific consensus on global warming and try to lift regulations on air pollution and potentially dangerous chemicals. They believe in drastically cutting the role of government and slashing benefits such as social security.

A recent report on the Politico website detailed how they planned to spend $88m in the 2012 election supporting conservative causes and politicians.

The Kochs share the Tea Party view that Obama is a threat to the American way of life. Last week David Koch made a rare comment to a reporter from New York magazine, calling Obama "a hardcore socialist". "He's marvellous at pretending to be something other than that, but that is what I believe he truly is, a hardcore socialist. He's scary to me," he added.

There is nothing illegal about the Kochs' political activities. Greenwald concedes they have every right to fund whatever organisations they like.

Some groups have said however that their business practices are sometimes the opposite of their public campaigns. A non-partisan Washington watchdog group, the Centre for Public Integrity, reported last month that Koch Industries' ethanol business enjoys high incomes thanks to government subsidies, despite their disapproval of such policies. Equally, while they oppose a cap-and-trade system in the US to control carbon emissions, the trading arm of Koch Industries makes millions in Europe from such a system.

The report also detailed their lobbying interests. From $857,000 in 2004, Koch Industries spent a staggering $20m in 2008 and $20.5m from 2009 to 2010

The company employs about 30 people in Washington seeking to influence more than 100 pieces of federal legislation. Greenpeace has expressed concern at the lobbying activities: "Organisations funded by Koch foundations have led the assault on climate science and scientists, green jobs, renewable energy and climate policy progress," it said in a report on the brothers in March.

Last week it was reported that a Koch foundation had funded two academic posts in the economics department of Florida State University – with the proviso that it would decide which candidates could be considered. Giving such power to a donor is an unusual move, especially at a public university. It also emerged that 60% of the university's suggestions were vetoed by the Kochs.

Not surprisingly, the brothers are fighting back. They rarely respond directly to their press critics. Emailed questions from the Observer to a Koch Industries representative received no response. But some reporters have been approached by PR people hired by the brothers to put forward their point of view.

The Kochs have also used more hardline tactics. One of the most revealing recent articles was a long exposé in the New Yorker by Jane Meyer. But when the report was nominated for a national award, a Koch executive wrote to the American Society of Magazine Editors criticising it for considering the article.

The brothers also sued pranksters who set up a fake Koch Industries website and sent out a bogus press release. Though a Utah judge dismissed the case, such lawsuits could easily be seen as a threat to others not to do the same. The Kochs also apparently bought online advertising against the Centre for Public Integrity report so that Google searches for it would also find statements rubbishing the claims.

Despite such efforts, the anti-Koch campaigners are unlikely to go away. Greenwald – whose previous targets have included Fox News, Walmart and former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani – says that he has at least seven more anti-Koch videos in the works.

Greenwald said the threat of a Koch backlash against his organisation was a concern but that he would not be intimidated: "The Kochs are the poster boys for a system that has become deeply unbalanced. We know that they are not happy with what we have done so far. They are going to be a lot less happy as we go on."

FAMILY FORTUNES

A conglomerate specialising in chemicals, energy and technology, Koch Industries is America's second-largest private company, with more than 70,000 employees worldwide and annual revenues of more than $100bn.

Originally called Rock Island Oil & Refining, the company was founded in 1940 by Fred Koch. Following his death in 1967 his son Charles became president, renaming it Koch Industries in his father's honour.

In 1983 Charles and his youngest brother David bought out their other two siblings, William and Frederick, for $1.1bn to become the principal owners. Both have a 42% stake, which makes chief executive Charles (now 75) and vice-president David (71) the joint 18th-richest people in the world.

quote:

Amerikaanse rechter beschuldigt collega van wurgpoging

Een lid van het gerechtshof in de Amerikaanse staat Wisconsin zegt dat een collega tijdens een verhitte discussie haar keel heeft dichtgeknepen. Het incident tussen de twee rechters zou zich eerder deze maand hebben voorgedaan.

Rechter Ann Walsh Bradley deed haar verhaal dit weekeinde in de Milwaukee Journal Sentinel nadat de collega in kwestie, David Prosser, geruchten over het voorval had ontkend. Bradley nam daarop contact op met het dagblad en bevestigde dat Prosser haar tijdens een discussie in een wurggreep had genomen.

Zolang de zaak in onderzoek is, zullen Bradley en Prosser zich vanaf nu onthouden van commentaar. Het zevenkoppige gerechtshof in Wisconsin is al geruime tijd ernstig verdeeld over wie de rekening moet betalen van de ziektekostenverzekering en de pensioenregeling van duizenden ambtenaren.

quote:

Wisconsin justice accuses colleague of choking her

Confrontation allegedly takes place in front of several members of the court

MADISON, Wis. — A member of the Wisconsin Supreme Court's liberal faction has accused a conservative justice of choking her during an argument in her office earlier this month — a charge he denied.

Supreme Court Justice Ann Walsh Bradley told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that Justice David Prosser put her in a chokehold during the dispute. She contacted the newspaper late Saturday after Prosser denied rumors about the altercation.

"The facts are that I was demanding that he get out of my office and he put his hands around my neck in anger in a chokehold," Bradley told the newspaper.

A message could not be left at her home listing, and her former campaign manager did not return a call from The Associated Press.

Wisconsin Public Radio and the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism, quoting anonymous sources, first reported the argument occurred before the Supreme Court's decision earlier this month upholding Republican Gov. Scott Walker's bill eliminating most of public employees' collective bargaining rights. Prosser then released a statement denying the allegations.

"Once there's a proper review of the matter and the facts surrounding it are made clear, the anonymous claim made to the media will be proven false," he said. "Until then I will refrain from further public comment."

Prosser's spokesman Brian Nemoir declined to comment on Bradley's later statement and told The Associated Press that Prosser probably wouldn't either. Other members of the court either did not return messages or declined to comment on the incident.

The argument took place June 13, the day before the court, in a 4-3 decision that included a blistering dissent, ruled that Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi overstepped her authority when she declared the polarizing union law void. While accounts differ, the justices were apparently discussing the decision and its timing.

Leaders in the Republican-controlled Legislature had pushed for a decision by June 14 because they were working on the state budget, and Walker's proposal depended on expected savings from the law. Along with limiting most public employees' bargaining rights, it requires them to pay 12 percent of their health insurance costs and 5.8 percent of their pension costs.

Tens of thousands of people gathered for weeks at the Capitol to protest the proposal after Walker unveiled in February. Once it passed, opponents began to focus on Prosser's re-election campaign in the hope that by replacing him with a liberal justice, they could get the court to overturn the legislation.

Prosser, who had been expected to walk away with the election, found himself in a tight race with liberal challenger JoAnne Kloppenburg. Initial results showed she had defeated Prosser by about 200 votes, and she declared herself the winner the day after the election. Then a county clerk who once worked for Prosser announced she had failed to report 14,000 votes.

A bitter and nearly month-long recount ended with Prosser's re-election. He defeated Kloppenburg by about 7,000 votes.

The recount ended about three weeks before the Supreme Court issued its opinion in the union case. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinal, quoting an anonymous source, said the argument erupted after Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson said she didn't know whether the opinion would be released in June. Prosser allegedly questioned Abrahamson's leadership, leading Bradley to defend her.

Prosser and Abrahamson, another of the court's liberal minority, had had problems before. Prosser told the newspaper in March that he had used profanity in a meeting the month before and threatened to destroy Abrahamson.

Bradley sent all the justices an email after that meeting, saying Prosser's behavior was unacceptable. She said later that she considered making a report to law enforcement but decided against it.

The Center for Investigative Journalism reported the altercation between Prosser and Bradley had been brought to the attention of the Wisconsin Judicial Commission, which investigates allegations of misconduct involving judges. The commission's executive director, James Alexander, said he couldn't confirm nor deny an incident was under investigation

quote:

Op zondag 3 april 2011 08:45 schreef Lyrebird het volgende:

EAT THE RICH!

quote:

Op maandag 27 juni 2011 12:50 schreef Papierversnipperaar het volgende:

[..]

[..]

Recount!

Het gaat lekker met de democratie in USA.

quote:

Op maandag 27 juni 2011 13:05 schreef Pietverdriet het volgende:

[..]

Je hebt echt geen idee hoe democratisch de VS is.
Serieus, je hebt geen flauw idee,

quote:

First Cairo Egypt And Now Washington DC: Tent City Occupation Begins Oct. 6, 2011

Finally, a large, and rapidly growing, coalition of left wing and progressive activists, and organizations, is coming together with a clear and united platform. Hundreds of thousands are expected to descend on DC this coming October, 111 days from now, not just to march in a permitted parade and then return home, but to stay and occupy Freedom Plaza indefinitely, until their demands have been met.

quote:

Op maandag 27 juni 2011 13:07 schreef Papierversnipperaar het volgende:

[..]

ik ben bang dat ik het democratisch gehalte van de VS nog overschat.

quote:

Op maandag 27 juni 2011 14:22 schreef Pietverdriet het volgende:

[..]

Fixed

SPOILER

Om spoilers te kunnen lezen moet je zijn ingelogd. Je moet je daarvoor eerst gratis Registreren. Ook kun je spoilers niet lezen als je een ban hebt.

quote:

Op maandag 27 juni 2011 13:05 schreef Pietverdriet het volgende:

[..]

Je hebt echt geen idee hoe democratisch de VS is.
Serieus, je hebt geen flauw idee,

quote:

Financial Reform: Republicans Fight To Dilute Wall Street Regulations
WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama's financial overhaul law is nearly a year old. For congressional Republicans, the fight to weaken it is just starting.

Wary of trying to repeal the entire statute and being portrayed as Wall Street's protectors – banks rank among the country's least popular institutions – GOP lawmakers are trying to nibble away at the behemoth measure. It's a crusade they're waging despite lacking the White House and Senate control they need to prevail.

Days ago, one Republican-run House committee approved bills diluting parts of the law requiring reports on corporate salaries and exempting some investment advisers from registering with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Another House panel voted to slice $200 million from Obama's $1.4 billion budget request for the SEC, which has a major enforcement role.

Meanwhile, Senate Republicans are continuing a procedural blockade that has helped prevent Obama from putting Elizabeth Warren or anyone else in charge of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which opens its doors in two weeks.

The law hurts "the formation of capital, the cost of capital and access to capital, and you can't have capitalism without capital," said Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, a leader of the House Financial Services Committee. "So Republicans in the House will be examining each and every one of the 2,000-plus pages" of the law, which he called "a job creator's nightmare."

Confident that Obama and the Democratic-controlled Senate can prevent the House from doing major damage, Democrats view the Republican drive as a political exercise – for now.

"It's mostly setting a marker for the election. And it helps with their campaign contributions," said Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., who chaired the Financial Services Committee last year and was a chief author of the law. "But it also tells people in the financial community that if they win the next election, they'll be able to undo it all."

The financial industry leans Republican in its campaign contributions but not overwhelmingly. Sixty-one percent of the $9 million that commercial banks gave federal candidates for the 2010 elections went to Republicans, while 54 percent of the securities and investment industry's $9 million went to Democrats, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

Democrats are using the GOP drive for their own fundraising.

In one email sent last week under Frank's name soliciting money for House candidates, the party wrote that Republicans want to "bring back the days of unrestrained excess, deception and de-regulation of Wall Street." The mailing called it "payback to their big contributors in the financial services industry."

Obama signed the banking and consumer protection measure last July 21, a keystone achievement that responded to the biggest financial crisis and most severe recession since the 1930s. It passed Congress with solid Democratic support and near-uniform GOP opposition.

Among its provisions, the law:

_ Created the consumer protection agency to oversee mortgages, credit cards and other financial products.

_ Established a body of regulators to scan the economy for threats to the financial system.

_ Required banks to hold back money for protection against losses.

_ Curbed the trading of derivatives, speculative investments partly blamed for the 2008 financial crisis.

_ Gave the Federal Reserve powers to oversee huge companies whose failures could jeopardize the entire financial system.

Yet the law was just a start, since it ordered federal agencies to craft rules to enforce it. As of July 1, out of an estimated 400 regulations to be written, 38 are complete. That leaves 362 proposed, facing a future deadline or having missed due dates for completion, according to the law firm Davis Polk.

Republicans say the overhaul went too far and has saddled banks and other companies with requirements that harm their competitiveness. The House Financial Services panel alone has held more than a dozen hearings on the law, in part to underscore to administration witnesses that some provisions – like forcing banks to hold back capital as a hedge against losses – will hurt business, according to the committee's chairman, Rep. Spencer Bachus, R-Ala.

"What we are doing is rational, it is sensible, it is entirely practical, it is compassionate," said Rep. Nan Hayworth, R-N.Y., a tea party-backed freshman on that panel. "So we are doing the right thing, and it behooves the Senate and the administration to follow suit."

The highest-profile fight has been over Warren, picked by Obama to set up the new consumer bureau. Many Democrats and liberal groups want her to become its first director.

Following a May clash between Warren and a House subcommittee chairman, House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., plans to question the Harvard law professor and long-time consumer activist at a July 14 hearing about her role shaping the new agency.

Meanwhile, 44 GOP senators have promised to block a vote on any nominee unless the bureau is made "accountable to the American people" by replacing the director with a board of directors and giving Congress control over its budget. Forty-one senators can prevent a nomination from coming to a vote.

"You try to get leverage where you can. In the Senate, nominations are your leverage," said Mark A. Calabria, who monitors financial regulation at the conservative-leaning Cato Institute.

On another front, Republicans want to cut the budgets of agencies that are supposed to enforce the overhaul.

Besides denying the SEC extra money next year, the House Appropriations Committee would limit the consumer protection bureau to $200 million, well below the $329 million Obama wants. The full House has voted to hold the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which oversees derivatives, to $171 million, short of this year's total and less than two-thirds of what Obama wanted.

Republicans cast the cuts as part of their deficit-cutting drive, but Democrats say the reductions are designed to obstruct the new law.

SEC Chairwoman Mary Schapiro said in a speech this spring that budget cuts would mean "an investor protection effort hobbled."

quote:

Colbert exposes Koch brothers’ voter suppression in Wisconsin

Comedy Central’s Stephen Colbert joked Thursday that if Wisconsin voters were going to follow the instructions from Koch brother-funded Americans for Prosperity then they might as well send their absentee ballots to Santa.

“Americans for Prosperity has even sent out these actual helpful absentee ballot applications to Democratic districts,” Colbert explained. “Now, they had to rush these to print, so some people have complained about inaccuracies, but it’s minor stuff, like instead of instructing you to send your ballot to the local municipal clerk, where ballots are officially collected, the address on this ballot is ‘Absentee Ballot Application Processing Center,’ which, and this is interesting, does not exist.”

The Comedy Central host also noted that Americans for Prosperity had told voters the wrong day to send in their ballots, and he offered a rhyme to help people remember.

“On August 11th, make your selection / That’s just two days after the actual election.”

Matt Seaholm, the State Director for Americans for Prosperity, told TMJ4 that the misinformation was “just a typo.”

“I accidentally put 11 when I mean nine all the time, because one and nine are so close to each other on the keyboard!” Colbert said. “Who cares whether they typed nine or 11. Point is, American for Prosperity and I want Wisconsinites to vote sometime in August.”

“But if you still don’t trust them, don’t send you’re ballots to the Koch brothers. Send it to Santa at the North Pole, U.S.A. He’ll get it to the right people.”

Watch this video from Comedy Central’s The Colbert Report, broadcast Aug. 4, 2011.