The 5-2 Montana ruling flies in the face of the landmark 2010 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. the Federal Elections Commission. That ruling by a 5-4 margin in 2010 blocked the government from limiting spending by corporations and unions for political purposes, as long as that spending is independent and not coordinated with campaigns.

The Montana Supreme Court (Photo: mt.gov)

Montana Supreme Court Chief Justice Mike McGrath, writing for the majority, argued that the sprawling western Rocky Mountain state passed its law to limit the undue influence of “mining and industrial enterprises controlled by foreign trusts or corporations.” He referenced the state’s “Copper Kings” who used to buy politicians and state officials.

“The question then, is when in the last 99 years did Montana lose the power or interest sufficient to support the statute, if it ever did. If the statute has worked to preserve a degree of political and social autonomy is the State required to throw away its protections?” McGrath wrote.

Some observers welcome the opportunity to re-open the debate and compel the U.S. Supreme Court to rule again on the issue.

“If they take it up, there will be a new opportunity to push forward all the arguments as to why the court got it wrong,” John Bonifaz of Free Speech for People told Politico, adding that if they reaffirm their prior decision, “that will only fuel the efforts further to allow a constitutional amendment.”

A Slate analysis on Wednesday offered this take on the Montana ruling:

“Western Tradition Partnership, the lead plaintiff in the case, merits extra special scorn from the court for circulating a fundraising brochure that said, ‘If you decide to support this program, no politician, no bureaucrat, and no radical environmentalist will ever know you made this program possible.’ The majority openly accuses WTP of being responsible for ‘a multi-front attack on both contribution restrictions and the transparency that accompanies campaign disclosure requirements.’”

The question of who’s funding American Tradition Partnership, which was called Western Tradition Partnership when it first challenged the Montana law in 2010, dates back to 2008 when the group was first registered as a 501(c)4 nonprofit in Colorado by Republic political operative Scott Shires.

The group was later re-registered by an attorney for the Denver law firm of Hackstaff Gessler, which is the former firm of current Republican Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler, a conservative election campaign lawyer who in the past represented Shires in various campaign finance violation cases.

Ferguson last summer flew out to Montana – at his own expense, he said – to counter community and environmental outrage in the wake of an ExxonMobil oil pipeline spill in the Yellowstone River.

Besides the corporate spending case, ATP is involved in other litigation challenging Montana campaign disclosure laws. The Montana Commissioner of Political Practices in 2010 found that WTP’s anonymous campaign fliers attacking Democrats and moderate Republicans “raised the specter of corruption” and merited formal action by the state’s attorney general.

That case is being heard by the same judge, District Judge Jeffrey Sherlock of Helena, who ruled in favor of WTP in the corporate spending case just overturned by the Montana Supreme Court.

A trial in that case has been set for March 19, according to John Doran, a spokesman for the Montana Department of Justice, who adds that the case essentially boils down to whether 501(c)4’s (named for a section of the IRS tax code) are educational organizations or political committees.

“The State of Montana contends they are political committees subject to state disclosure and disclaimer laws, and that they’ve spent hundreds of thousands of dollars secretly in Montana to influence Montana elections,” Doran said in an email. “They are arguing they are educational organizations that don’t need to disclose anything to the state.”

Colorado lawmakers are watching closely after WTP sent out fliers in a tight state Senate race in 2010 that prompted calls for tougher campaign disclosure laws for 501(c)4 nonprofits.

Photo: Flickr Creative Commons/www.BackgroundNow.com

Vander Plaats’ endorsement of Santorum was not a surprise to LGBT advocacy groups; both men have a history of making inflammatory statements against the LGBT community.

“Today’s endorsement of Rick Santorum by Bob Vander Plaats comes as no surprise,” One Iowa Executive Director Troy Price said in a statement. “Both Santorum and Vander Plaats have all built their careers attacking loving and committed gay and lesbian couples, and the fact is that Vander Plaats caved to the extreme social conservative agenda. With poll numbers lagging, it is clear Rick Santorum does not have a chance against President Obama in November, and Vander Plaats has endorsed a losing candidate.”

Vander Plaats drew the ire of many Iowans earlier this year when his group released a “marriage vow” for Republican presidential hopefuls that suggested that children were better off under slavery than they are under President Obama. After significant criticism, that language was removed.

But the vow, which Santorum signed, also likened homosexuality to polygamy, adultery, and polyandry; called gays and lesbians a public health risk; and asserted that homosexuality is a choice.

Price said that Vander Plaats’ endorsement of Santorum shows he is out of step with popular opinion regarding LGBT issues.

“Today’s announcement proves what we have known all along,” he said. “Bob Vander Plaats is out of touch with what voters want. What Iowans care about are jobs and the economy, and they deserve a candidate who does too.”

Vander Plaats’ action during the 2012 campaign has led some Republicans to criticize his tactics.

Iowa House Speaker Pro-Tem Jeff Kaufmann sent Vander Plaats a scathing email in July, which read, in part: “Guys your integrity is in question and your political credibility is waning to the point of no impact,” he wrote.

Santorum and Vander Plaats have both called for reduced federal spending, yet both have played a crucial role in funneling millions of taxpayer dollars to conservative Christian outfits that support their agenda of opposing equal rights for LGBT people.

Vander Plaats’ Family Leader got $2.2 million in federal money for the Marriage Matters program between 2006 and 2010.

As a U.S. senator, Santorum was instrumental in securing $3.1 million for conservative Christian groups in Pennsylvania, including the Urban Family Council, a Philadelphia-based group headed by William Devlin.

Devlin’s group supports laws criminalizing gays and lesbians. He told the Advocate in 2003, that he is “one of those folk who believes the government should be in our bedrooms.” He also filed suit to prevent domestic-partner benefits from taking effect in Philadelphia and has vociferously supported a proposed amendment to the Pennsylvania Constitution barring same-sex marriage.

In endorsing Santorum, Vander Plaats told reporters: “Our fear all along is that the conservatives would fragment their votes. In our assessment, we believe Rick Santorum is the best one to launch out of Iowa. … Hopefully, this gives him a stamp of credibility that some people are waiting for.”

He added: “I believe Rick Santorum comes from us. Not to us. He comes from us. He is one of us.”

Though Santorum is taking the endorsement seriously, Vander Plaats said in July that he doesn’t put much weight to endorsements.

In addition to Vander Plaats, Chuck Hurley of the Iowa Family Policy Center also endorsed Santorum. The IFPC is a division of Vander Plaats’ Family Leader.

Photo: Rick Santorum (ricksantorum.com)

A screenshot of the "Ignite" brochure (Photo: flfamily.org)

The leader of a politically influential Florida group that frequently advocates against LGBT and abortion rights has issued a new fundraising pitch to help gin up support for the work of its “Ignite an Enduring Cultural Transformation” campaign during the Sunshine State’s upcoming legislative session.

In May, The American Independent’s Andy Birkey reported that the Florida Family Policy Council was one of a network of organizations dedicated to raising money through the “Ignite” program to “pass anti-gay marriage amendments, curtail abortion rights and, in at least one case, ban ‘transgender bathrooms.’”

According to a Policy Council campaign brochure (PDF) that has been circulating since the campaign was announced more than a year ago, “Ignite” will champion “Biblically-Based Beliefs” in the state capitol during the upcoming legislative session.

These “beliefs” include:

Moral, physical and spiritual absolutes exist and were given to mankind to govern all of life. The sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman is the essential element of the family and a strong family is the essential element of a strong society. Life is a gift from God and should be protected from the time of conception to the end of natural life. First Amendment religious liberties are critical to our freedom as a people and must be protected and defended.

“Achieving transformation requires a lasting and enduring movement working strategically in key, cultural-defining areas,” the brochure claims. “‘Ignite’ is a two-year plan designed to fan the embers of November 2010 into a lasting movement built to achieve enduring cultural transformation.”

Florida Family Policy Council President John Stemberger (Photo: Flickr/Gage Skidmore)

According to a new fundraising pitch from Policy Council President John Stemberger, the campaign is meant to defeat what he calls “radical organizations like MoveOn.org, Planned Parenthood, American Atheists, and the ACLU.” He claims those groups “are doing everything they can to force through their liberal agenda.”

“Our opponents are preparing to spend hundreds of millions of dollars over the next 12 months to advance their radical agenda in Florida and across the country,” he writes.

Among the goals listed on the campaign brochure are:

Education – Preparing Leaders:

• 1,000 worldview training attendees.
• 700 pastors equipped at briefings.
• 5,000 couples trained as marriage mentors
• 100 student leaders networked and engaged
• 65 legislators briefed and informed on issues

Legislation – Promoting Values:

• Continue Tallahassee Office and Staff
• Pass Ultrasound Option before Abortion
• Pass Marriage Strengthening Initiatives
• Defeat Radical Homosexual Agenda

Providing Accountability:

• Distribute 3 million voter guides.
• Reach 5 million values voters.
• Engage 3,000 pastors and churches

The group has already begun reaching out to religious voters. In November, Stemberger started “Project Active Citizen” to get as many religious voters to the polls as possible. In an email to supporters asking for donations to the project, he described it as “an effort … to help encourage thousands of pro-life and pro-family Floridians to register to vote.”

Stemberger has also already begun to distribute voter guides specifically geared towards pastors and how they can legally influence voters.

Project Active Citizen is just one of a handful campaigns or events that have come on the heels of Stemberger’s involvement in the Florida Renewal Project’s Pastors’ Policy Briefing. The “briefing” was held in order to involve churches and religious leaders in elections. Media outlets were barred from the event and a reporter was even escorted away from a meeting between presidential candidates Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich and pastors. Since the briefing, Stemberger helped lead a religious right get-out-the-vote event that took place in about 100 churches all over the country — including 34 in Florida.

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla. (Photo: Facebook)

As the Independent’s Birkey reported, Stemberger’s influential group has received big-name endorsements, including one from Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., who “loaned his name to the Florida Family Policy Council’s Ignite plan, which calls for spending $300,000 to mandate that women view an ultrasound before having an abortion and to ‘defeat the radical homosexual agenda.’”Rubio is quoted in the group’s campaign brochure touting its success. “FFPC’s successes in education, legislation and accountability have made them an indispensable asset in promoting and defending traditional values,” Rubio said, according to the Policy Council.

Birkey reported that the group has “averaged revenues of $384,000 over the last three years.”

Although no new specific legislative goals have been listed by the group, Stemberger writes in his fundraising pitch that the group “has an aggressive plan” for 2012.

“Attacks from those who work to undermine life, marriage, family and religious liberty are more sophisticated, more aggressive, and more frequent than ever,” the “Ignite” brochure says. ”‘We the people’ spoke loud and clear in November of 2010 but that one moment, by itself, will not achieve the cultural transformation we seek.”

Photo: A screenshot of the “Ignite” brochure (flfamily.org)

A review of state financial reports by The American Independent found that East PAC, one of the four “Big PACs” affiliated with The Louisiana Association of Business and Industry (LABI), an organization claiming to promote the“free-enterprise system,” made the donation to Roemer on Monday.

Image from the Louisiana Department of Education

Alainna Giacone, communications director for the Louisiana Board of Ethics, the body that regulates election campaign finance, told TAI: “The campaign finance chart limits the amount Big PACs contribute per election to no more than $10,000.”

The contributions were made ahead of November 19 run-off elections pitting Roemer against Donald Songy, a former educator and parish superintendent. The election results will determine whether Gov. Bobby Jindal will enjoy a “pro-reform” majority on the school boards sympathetic to expanding charter schools and weakening teacher tenure rules.

Giacone said The Board of Ethics will likely not take up the issue until December during its monthly meeting.

“Once we receive notice of a report for a possible violation, then it will be put on the docket,” she said. Giacone pointed to state laws indicating that the candidate and the PAC can face anywhere from $5,000 to $20,000 in fines for the violation.

Roemer, the son of former Louisiana Gov. Buddy Roemer, narrowly missed earning the majority vote in an Oct. 22 election that would have resulted in his outright taking the BESE seat — instead receiving 45 percent of the vote. Songy finished second with 28 percent.

While Roemer’s fundraising far exceeded that of his opponents in the BESE seat election, as previously reported by TAI, his supporters are aggressively raising money on his behalf.

A Louisiana Republican group affiliated with Gov. Bobby Jindal is asking supporters to help raise $200,000 for the Roemer’s reelection.

Friends of Bobby Jindal circulated an e-mail on Wednesday that read, in part:

“This is a must win race.  We will need to raise $200k quickly to wage a strong campaign for Chas [Roemer] and provide him the support he needs to win election in 4 weeks.  Winning this last BESE race will give us a pro-reform majority on the BESE board, giving the Governor and strong partner in reforming our education system so every child can attend a good school and receive a great education.”

An e-mail attachment directs users to the 2011 Republican Victory Fund donation page. Contribution requests range from $5,000 to $100,000. Those limits are defined by state laws that say individuals can contribute up to $5,000 to a candidate per election — or up to $100,000 to a Political Action Committees (PACs) over a four-year period.

Friends of Bobby Jindal, however, is not a registered PAC. It cannot raise money but does not violate state laws soliciting on behalf of groups like The Republican Victory Fund.

On a comprehensive campaign finance filing dated October 11, Roemer’s records show he collected $117,250 to Songy’s $965.

Chris Sommers, Director of the Louisiana Campaign Finance Division within the Louisiana Board of Ethics, told The American Independent, “Certainly the Republican Party can spend unlimited amounts of money; however, just from what I have seen, solicitations aren’t often made in this way.”

Filings after October 11 show Roemer added an additional $16,149.48 from state Republican Party contributions, plus an additional $53,500.

Songy, meanwhile has added $5,000 to his campaign purse strings following donations from a local SEIU chapter and the Louisiana affiliate of the National Education Association. The available records on Songy indicate his campaign has raised $13,830.00. Roemer’s earnings total $222,125.50

Yet state campaign finance records also show Roemer has spent less than $25,000 since January of 2010 on his reelection effort. In the same period, Songy spent just over $6,400 on campaign expenses.

“Customarily, there isn’t a lot of money spent on these elections,” Sommers said, referring to BESE seats. “There is definitely more financial activity compared to before in connection with those races.”

Many corporate interests have backed Roemer.

LABI, made up of four regional PACs (West PAC, East PAC, North PAC, and South PAC) that each gave Roemer  $10,000, also through East Pac contributed an additional $20,000 on Monday. The state Republican Party gave nearly $34,000. While Gov. Jindal, who needs a two-thirds majority in BESE to have his choice for state superintendent of public schools appointed, donated to Roemer $5,000 through his campaign committee. His father Buddy Roemer has donated $10,000, spaced over the two campaign periods.

Roemer’s membership on BESE has been a source of rancor for groups opposing his unabated support for charter schools. Roemer’s sister, Caroline Roemer Shirley, is executive director of the Louisiana Association of Public Charter Schools (LAPCS). The group advocates for expanding charter schools in the state and loosening restrictions on teacher tenure. In 2008, the state’s top ethics committee ruled Caroline Roemer cannot appear before BESE, but LAPCS is not restricted. Chas Roemer was not asked to recuse himself from hearings when LAPCS is present, though sections 1112 and 1120 of the Louisiana Code of Governmental Ethics indicate that he should.

A look at BESE meeting minutes in January of 2011 reveals (PDF) Chas Roemer voted on renewing the charters of multiple charter schools (Type 5 Charter Schools) that are members of the charter school association his sister leads. Some of those include the McDonogh schools, which belong to the KIPP and Algiers charter school networks.

Politics in Minnesota’s Paul Demko notes that MCCL President Leo LaLonde went after House Speaker Kurt Zellers and Senate Majority Leader Amy Koch, both of whom are Republicans. The letter notes that MCCL’s finances are at an all-time low.

“I am going to be brutally honest,” LaLonde wrote. “I am devastated by the fact that not only were we unsuccessful in enacting any new pro-life laws this session, but we lost an existing pro-life policy for the first time since Roe V. Wade legalized abortion on demand!”

LaLonde criticized Republicans for the group’s legislative failures.

“[We] felt confident that House and Senate leaders would insist that at least some of our protective measures would be included in the final budget,” he said. “Senate Majority Leader Koch and Speaker of the House Zellers quickly struck a deal with Gov. Dayton, and in the blink of an eye all five pro-life measures that has been passed by nearly two-thirds, veto-proof margin during the legislative session were negotiated away.”

He added, “The Republican leaders lost sight of what is truly at stake—the lives of innocent human beings.”

The letter asked supporters for donations because MCCL is struggling financially.

“The uncertainty of the economy has not been kind to MCCL. Donations are down,” the letter reads. MCCL also said that they spent a lot of money in the 2011 legislative session: ”Our coffers are at an all-time low-will you help us?”

The Colorado Springs, Colo.-based, group, which James Dobson founded in 1977, is projected to end the 2011 fiscal year, on Sept. 30, with a $105 million budget; however, Focus only brought in $90 million to $95 million in donations this year. The organization is responding to the funding reduction with a 7-percent staff reduction.

“God has never promised us a certain budget number,” said Gary Schneeberger, vice president of communications for Focus on the Family (FoF), in a statement.  “He’s only called us to spend the money He provides responsibly and to help as many families as possible. That’s what we’ll continue to do.”

In the last 10 years, FoF’s staff has been reduced by more than half. In 2002, FoF had about 1,400 employees; once the layoffs go through, it will have about 650 people on staff.

FoF has blamed reduced donations on the economy.

“Many nonprofit and for-profit organizations have had to close their doors due to the ravages of these tough economic times,” Schneeberger said. ”We’re encouraged by our donors’ trust in us and will continue to honor and earn it.

“Tears have been spilled on both sides of these decisions, because these aren’t numbers on a spreadsheet,” he continued. “These are friends who share our passion to do the Lord’s work. Given economic realities, though, we had to ensure we continue to maximize the resources we have to help spouses in their marriages, help parents raise their kids and help Christians walk out their faith with boldness and joy.”

In the past three years, FoF — along with its Washington, D.C.-based affiliate the Family Research Council – has used its donations to fight initiatives to legalize same-sex marriage at the state level. In 2008 (PDF) and 2009 (PDF), the group contributed about $200,000 to anti-gay-marriage political campaigns in California, Maine and Washington, D.C., according to financial statements submitted to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). FoF donated about $50,000 Exodus International, the country’s larges “ex-gay” ministry. FoF also spends significant funds on donations to crisis pregnancy centers and on supporting anti-abortion-rights ad campaigns throughout the country. This year, FoF paid for a controversial anti-abortion-rights Super Bowl commercial that starred Denver Broncos quarterback Tim Tebow.

Many of FoF’s state-based affiliates have benefited from a massive political funding campaign called “Ignite an Enduring Cultural Transformation,” where funds are funneled to states with majority-Republican control to oppose same-sex marriage, abortion rights and transgender rights. As The American Independent has reported, most of the Ignite plans were launched with an anonymous matching-grant donor, and FoF has claimed it has no involvement in the program despite being “fully associated” with its affiliates.

FoF experienced a slight budget surplus in 2008, ending the year with about $130 million in revenue. The following year however, FoF ended the year with $109 million in revenue and a $12 million deficit. Further budget reductions in 2010 led the organization to eliminate more than 100 jobs.

The majority of sugar cane might be grown in South Florida, but the industry’s political reach extends far beyond the state.

Legend has it that then-President Bill Clinton even interrupted his breakup with Monica Lewinsky to take a call from one of Big Sugar’s top dogs — Alfonso “Alfy” Fanjul. Fanjul and others in his family own Flo-Sun, based in West Palm Beach. The company, along with U.S. Sugar Corp. (headquartered in Clewiston), are the two largest producers of raw cane sugar in the country.

Flo-Sun — through subsidiaries such as Florida Crystals, Domino Foods Inc. and C&H Sugar Company — also has milling and refining operations around the world, with a global production capacity of about 7 million tons of sugar per year. U.S. Sugar’s refined production is less than 1 million, but its subsidiary Southern Gardens Citrus is one of the largest suppliers of not-from-concentrate orange juice in the United States.

As one of Florida’s top agricultural commodities, sugar has a lot to lose from regulations and a lot to gain from agricultural legislation. So the top companies spread campaign donations fairly evenly between Republicans and Democrats across the country, and are often rewarded with support.

During the 2010 cycle, U.S. Sugar donated $12,400 to then-Rep. Allen Boyd, while PACs and individuals working with Flo-Sun gave $16,000 and American Crystal Sugar gave $10,000. Sugar companies have also given heavily to Reps. Dennis Ross, R-Lakeland, and Tom Rooney, R-Stuart. Ross’ second-largest contributor has been Flo-Sun; individuals working for the company donated at least $13,000 to his campaigns since 2009.

It is no surprise, then, that Boyd (before losing his 2010 reelection bid), Ross and Rooney have all crusaded against environmental regulations. The three have been especially vocal about the EPA’s “numeric nutrient criteria,” which could potentially affect agricultural interests including sugar, whose nutrient-laden effluent often makes its way into state waterways, causing noxious algal blooms and fish kills.

According to OpenSecrets, Big Sugar gave more than $4.2 million to federal candidates and party committees during the 2008 election cycle alone, 63 percent of which went to Democrats.

Companies with ties to Florida Crystals (which has contributed nearly $4.5 million to campaigns since 1991) gave at least $100,000 to now-Gov. Rick Scott’s gubernatorial campaign. The head of Florida Crystals also hosted a large campaign fundraiser for Scott only four weeks after he blasted the company’s rival — U.S. Sugar — over its role in a planned Everglades restoration project.

Adam Putnam, meanwhile, was one of the group’s largest recipients in 2002, when he was running for reelection as a congressman. Big Sugar donated at least $61,000 to Putnam’s successful 2010 campaign to become the Florida agriculture commissioner. Shortly after taking office, Putnam sought to delay a ban on sugary drinks in Florida public schools.

The lobbying arm of U.S. Sugar is enormously powerful. In 2009, crop producers spent more than $20.5 million on federal lobbying. The American Sugar Alliance, which represents both the Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida and the Florida Sugar Cane League, was responsible for $1.3 million of that sum.

In 2011 so far, Flo-Sun has spent at least $345,000 on lobbying, while U.S. Sugar has spent $80,000.

“We have been blessed in that the support for farm policies and sugar policies has not been a partisan issue,” says Phillip Hayes, director of media relations for the American Sugar Alliance, which includes Florida Crystals. “When you talk to Republicans and Democrats, the vast majority of people in Congress support U.S. sugar policy. They recognize that you can walk into any coffee shop and pick up free packets of sugar. We have an ample supply of inexpensive sugar, and most of it is homegrown and most members of Congress want to hang on to that success story.”

“We have been in litigation on the flipside of United States Sugar most of the time over the past 20 years, maybe a little more,” says David Guest, an attorney with the environmental law firm Earthjustice. “So we are intimately familiar with the sugar companies. We know how they work.”

Guest says that Big Sugar operates differently than most agricultural industries — trading cash in the form of campaign donations for political favors in the form of subsidies. If the companies gain enough legislative support, they can ensure that agricultural legislation is written to their specifications, keeping sugar prices and subsidies high.

“They are unlike any other industry in Florida in that they aren’t in the agricultural business, they are in the corporate welfare business,” says Guest. “They get massive amounts of free services with hundreds of millions of dollars. There is a legal requirement imposed where consumers pay extra for their products … and when those programs were being reviewed and repealed in years past, it was sugar only that managed to escape the repeal.”

With its heavy contributions to congressional campaigns, sugar interests have proven skilled at getting their way — especially when it comes to the most important piece of legislation affecting the industry, the U.S. Farm Bill.

This comprehensive bill, which is passed every five years or so by Congress, usually amends or repeals certain provisions of preceding agricultural acts. For Big Sugar, this often translates into lavish subsidies that some theorize they’d go bankrupt without.

The next Farm Bill will be voted on in 2012, and it might look different than in years past. But Big Sugar isn’t worried.

“The whole process is the great unknown. We don’t know what the bill will look like,” says Hayes. “But there will be some reductions. Specifically with sugar, though, sugar is in a pretty good situation. … Sugar has operated at no cost to taxpayers since 2002 and we project that it will remain that way till at least 2021.”

As Hayes points out, federal legislation calls for the sugar program to be operated on a no-cost basis. But it’s costing someone: namely, candy companies that would prefer that the cost of sugar be lowered. The U.S. is mandated to import sugar from 41 countries across the globe, 38 of which are developing, but the government restricts those imports through a series of quotas — pushing U.S. sugar prices to between two and three times the global market rate.

As a result, a handful of sugar producers pocket around $1 billion a year in excess profits. A portion of that revenue is eventually placed back into the political system, a win for both Big Sugar and lawmakers across the country.

Without the high costs brought on by sugar policy, U.S. sugar companies argue they could lose their market share to Brazil, Australia or Thailand. Extensive lobbying and campaign contributions are merely insurance for companies Guest calls the “corporate welfare kings” of America.

Sugar isn’t explicit about its lobbying efforts, but it makes sure to cite the importance of “education.”

“Sugar always works to educate members of Congress about the benefits to sugar policy,” says Hayes. “What we like to say is that sugar policy is clearly working for everyone it touches.”

This report was produced as part of a collaborative investigative effort to expose the influence of corporate money on the political process by members of The Media Consortium, in partnership with the We the People Campaign. To read more stories from this series, visit CampaignCash.org or follow #CampaignCash on Twitter.

Louisana Gov. Bobby Jindal spoke with Cedar Rapidians in the aftermath of the 2008 floods. (File Photo: Lynda Waddington/The Iowa Independent)

“[Perry's] record on job creation simply cannot be beat, and the one million jobs he’s helped create as governor is a stark contrast to the 2.4 million jobs lost on President Obama’s watch,” Jindal said. “President Obama promised hope, but he simply hasn’t delivered. Rick Perry will bring our country more than hope — he’ll get America working again.”

The new taxes were part of the budget for FY 2012. One applies the state income tax for the first time to public employee pensions. The other phases out the personal exemption for single filers who make more than $75,000 a year and joint filers above $150,000 a year.

The constitutionality of both are being challenged, but on different grounds. Plaintiffs argue that the pension tax violates a constitutional rule against reducing the accrued amount of a pension because taxing those earnings is a reduction in earnings. And another set of plaintiffs argues that the elimination of the personal exemption for high-income residents violates the state’s constitutional ban on a graduated income tax.

Peter Luke reports on some of the unusual circumstances at the hearings last week, which were held after the state’s high court agreed to hear the cases directly, bypassing the lower courts:

During Wednesday’s oral arguments at the Hall of Justice, the court had Attorney General Bill Schuette’s office argue both sides of constitutional issues Snyder has asked to be resolved before the plan takes effect Jan. 1.

That made for some odd moments.

Deputy Solicitor General Eric Restuccia, said applying different tax treatments to taxpayers based on income is unconstitutional. Solicitor General John Bursch, second only to Schuette in the office, argued that since the Snyder package doesn’t apply a higher tax rate to higher levels of income, it’s not a graduated tax and thus OK.

The main question for last week’s hearing was presumed to have been the issue of whether the state can apply the income tax to the pensions of retired public employees. Employee groups argue it’s an unconstitutional impairment of those pension benefits.

In the arguments Wednesday, justices didn’t show much interest. Perhaps that’s because the issue had been thoroughly briefed. Or maybe its because the court’s Republican majority doesn’t have a problem with it.

But judging from the questioning, justices did have issues with the personal exemption cutoff, and the position that the constitution’s framers really did allow the Legislature to tax upper-income households more thoroughly than lower-income households.

No word yet on how soon the court will rule on either case.

“In Iowa, your word is your bond,” GOP chairman Matt Strawn said in a release. “We are disappointed that Mr. Trump has chosen not to honor his commitment to Iowa Republicans.”

Trump, who also stars in his own reality television show “The Apprentice,” announced this week he will not run for President in 2012, saying he is “not ready to leave the private sector.”