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)

In a Bloomberg television interview, Sessions, R-Texas, told Al Hunt that Buchanan “has been forthright and brought the information to the committee and to the Department of Justice himself,” and that he has “confidence” in him despite the ongoing investigations.

In December 2010, the Federal Election Commission filed suit against Buchanan’s former car dealership and a former business partner for allegedly reimbursing employees who donated to the congressman’s 2006 and 2008 campaigns with car dealership funds.

Though the FEC didn’t file suit against Buchanan himself, the allegations are now the subject of an investigation by both the Department of Justice and the Office of Congressional Ethics. In July, The Florida Independent published a lengthy sworn deposition given by Buchanan’s former business partner (in which he says Buchanan orchestrated the campaign reimbursements); in September, we posted two voicemails left by Buchanan that reference the scheme.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee criticized Sessions’ comments in a press release sent, arguing that his defense of Buchanan comes despite Republican Leader Eric Cantor pledging to enforce a “zero tolerance policy” on ethics violations.

“When your Finance Chairman is under criminal investigation for campaign finance schemes, every dollar you raise is suspect,” said the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s Jesse Ferguson. “NRCC Chairman Pete Sessions and Republican leadership standing by Congressman Vern Buchanan is only the latest exception in their ‘zero tolerance’ policy for ethics.”

A federal judge has denied the Federal Election Commission’s motion to fine a former business partner of Rep. Vern Buchanan, R-Sarasota, over contributions made to Buchanan’s 2006 and 2008 campaigns.

As extensively reported by The Florida Independent, the FEC has been investigating a series of donations made to Buchanan’s 2006 and 2008 congressional campaigns, during which time a dealership he co-owned allegedly reimbursed employees who donated to his campaign committee.

Buchanan himself has not been punished by the FEC, even though, at the time of the alleged reimbursements, he was majority owner of the dealership. Instead, the FEC fined his former business partner, Sam Kazran, and the dealership the two co-owned together, Hyundai of North Jacksonville.

U.S. District Judge Roy Dalton yesterday denied the FEC’s “Motion for Partial Summary Judgment,” which would have fined Kazran nearly $68,000 for the reimbursements. In his ruling, Dalton writes that the FEC “does not provide any guidance in its Motion” and “rests its case primarily on certain statements made by Kazran, which the FEC contends conclusively establish that Kazran solicited others to make campaign contributions in their own names and either advanced the money or promised to reimburse them.”

Though Kazran has admitted to knowing about the reimbursement scheme, he has long maintained that Buchanan was the one orchestrating it. The Independent has spoken with two former Buchanan employees who backed Kazran’s story.

According to Dalton, Kazran’s statements “are not judicially binding admissions,” as he proceeded without legal counsel and may not have known that he was admitting to liability. In his own words, Kazran says that he is a “political outsider” who had no knowledge of campaign finance laws and was only following his boss’ orders.

Stating that “the Court is not persuaded by the FEC’s position,” Dalton adds that he is “reluctant to grant partial summary judgment on the issue of liability where the FEC’s theory of liability is unclear, especially where one theory may suggest that individuals who are not defendants in this enforcement action may have violated the statute as well.”

Though Buchanan himself wasn’t named as a defendant in the FEC suit, his implication in the case isn’t cut-and-dry. He is currently under investigation by both the House Office of Congressional Ethics and the U.S. Department of Justice over the same allegations in the FEC suit.

Historically, the FEC has been somewhat reluctant to file suit against sitting members of Congress, but as the federal agency charged by Congress to enforce the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, it has absolute discretion to decide whether to prosecute violations.

Kazran might now have the chance to demonstrate that Buchanan coerced him into making the contributions, which he has maintained all along. The Independent obtained a lengthy sworn deposition Kazran gave to the FEC, as well as two voicemails in which Buchanan himself references the reimbursement scheme.

As Dalton’s ruling reads, “a trial court is permitted, in its discretion, to deny even a well-supported motion for summary judgment, if it believes the case would benefit from a full hearing.”

kazran_dc_order_deny_part_sj –

The Senate amendment, which has a recent House counterpart, would give Congress and states the authority to regulate money spent in federal and state political campaigns.

Franken formally signed on to support the Senate amendment last week. It was proposed at the start of November by Sen. Tom Udall of New Mexico.

“Minnesotans’ right to fair and transparent elections have been severely compromised since the Supreme Court held that American corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money on elections ,” Franken told the Minnesota Independent in an email. “This constitutional amendment would authorize Congress to regulate the raising and spending of money in federal and state campaigns, which is why I strongly support it.”

The move comes as a slew of new Super PACs have raised millions of dollars in anticipation of next year’s presidential and congressional races.

According to new information released by USA Today, Congressman Vern Buchanan, R-Sarasota, is among America’s wealthiest 1 percent, currently under attack by Occupy Wall Street protesters.

According to the newspaper, Buchanan’s estimated net worth (which doesn’t include his primary residence or personal property) falls somewhere around $136,152,641. As USA Today points out, members of Congress disclose their assets and liabilities in broad ranges, with their estimated net worth falling in the middle of that range.

Occupy Wall Street protesters have rallied against the top 1 percent with their signature slogan: “We are the 99 percent.”

The Federal Election Commission recently investigated a series of donations made to Buchanan’s 2006 and 2008 congressional campaigns, during which he allegedly reimbursed employees who made donations with funds from his car dealership. Buchanan himself wasn’t punished by the FEC, but his former business partner and a car dealership the two once co-owned together were fined for the donations.

The Department of Justice launched its own investigation into Buchanan in October. And, as The Florida Independent has exclusively reported, the House of Representatives’ Office of Congressional Ethics also launched a preliminary investigation into Buchanan in late September.

Photo: Rep. Vern Buchanan, R-Sarasota (Pic via Facebook)

But a string of court cases across the country have shed serious doubt on those claims, with courts finding that conservative leaders were unable to provide credible evidence of threats or violence.

Avoiding disclosure in Minnesota

The Minnesota Family Council and the National Organization for Marriage lobbied the campaign finance board to loosen disclosure on campaign spending by arguing that their donors will be targeted if their names are disclosed.

“To require groups, non profits like the Minnesota Family Council, to disclose their donors and make their donors names public would have a significant chilling effect on free speech. Even in Minnesota already it’s gotten heated in some respects,” Tom Prichard, president of MFC, told the board in June. “The concern is harassment, property damage, a chilling effect. If I know I have to disclose my name, I’m not going to get involved with the Minnesota Family Council.”

Prichard said he had knowledge of violence against donors to the Prop 8 campaign in California.

“They went after their employment, by challenging their employers. There was vandalism on certain organizations. I can think of one individual that his business suffered because he had to disclose,” he said. “I don’t think our organization should have to disclose our donors, period. We just don’t believe we should be forced to.”

Conservative Catholic columnist for the Star Tribune, Katherine Kersten, recently echoed the Minnesota Family Council’s claims.

“A block thrown through a home window. Cars vandalized. Hate-filled anonymous phone calls at home and work. Swastikas scrawled on houses of worship. Physical assaults. Dismissal from employment because of political views,” wrote Kersten. “[T]his is the sort of intimidation that Americans who support marriage as the union of a man and woman can face today. Persecution of opponents is becoming a tool of the trade for some gay-marriage activists, who—ironically—seem to view themselves as beacons of tolerance.”

She added, “Now, the groundwork for such intimidation is being laid in Minnesota.”

The groundwork is actually being laid for a lawsuit by NOM and the Minnesota for Marriage coalition against the state of Minnesota. When the campaign finance board rejected Minnesota for Marriage’s arguments that full disclosure of donors would put them at risk, the coalition announced that it would not follow the board’s disclosure rules.

But history shows that launching a lawsuit in Minnesota based on the possibility of violence against marriage amendment supporters would be an uphill battle.

Protect Marriage Washington falsified or exaggerated about threats

NOM’s claims were tested this fall in Washington state when Protect Marriage Washington (PMW), a group affiliated with NOM, lost its case in court. PMW wanted to overturn that state’s domestic partner laws through an initiative called R-71. The group was successful in gathering enough signatures to put the repeal on the ballot, but it did not want those signatures to be public arguing that “militant homosexual activist groups” would target them.

After a local paper did a feature with state legislator Elizabeth Scott, a feature that included her contact information and talked about her support for repealing the domestic partner law, she said she received death threats.

“Extremists issued multiple death threats to me and my children due to my being publicly questioned about my personal beliefs,” Scott told the Faith and Freedom Network. “I am greatly concerned for both the safety and the freedom of speech of those who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman.”

The court found that Scott’s story did not stand up to scrutiny.

“However, other than speculation, Scott does not attribute to R-71 this death threat or any other incident that she claimed could be considered harassment,” the court wrote.

After the court decision, she wrote, “I guess when the First Amendment is eliminated, we drop back to the Second.”

Gary Randall, who runs the Faith and Freedom Network that spearheaded the effort to repeal the domestic partner law, also had his own complaints about death threats, which he later retracted.

“Randall testified that he received death threats via a blog site; however, when asked to demonstrate where in the copy of the blog posting he believed a threat of his or another’s life was made he could not do so without relying on assumptions,” the court wrote, adding that Randall “finally conceding that no actual death threat was made on the website”

The court noted that Randall was referring to the website, PinkPistols.org, which is a group for LGBT people who hold conceal and carry licenses.

“This website appears to advocate for homosexuals to be armed if desired to use only in self defense,” the court said in a footnote. “[Randall] has not supplied competent evidence to the contrary.”

As a matter of fact, the website no longer exists and according to the Wayback Machine hasn’t been updated since 2006, well before Washington’s enacting of the domestic partnership law.

Other witnesses provided testimony in the Washington case that the court found lacking. One witness testified that he was harassed when two women came up to him while he was gathering signatures for R-71 and one said “we have feelings too.” Another said he found three Post-It notes on his car with vulgar language. Still another felt harassed when a passing motorist made offensive gestures at him.

In the court’s conclusion, Judge Benjamin Settle wrote:

Applied here, the Court finds that Doe has only supplied evidence that hurts rather than helps its case. Doe has supplied minimal testimony from a few witnesses who, in their respective deposition testimony, stated either that police efforts to mitigate reported incidents was sufficient or unnecessary. Doe has supplied no evidence that police were or are now unable or unwilling to mitigate any claimed harassment or are now unable or unwilling to control the same, should disclosure be made.

The court did say that they’d demonstrated that there was some hostility to a same-sex marriage ban in the state, but not that it could lead to threats or violence, and that there had been no evidence that advocates had been harassed in the two years since the ballot question was introduced to Washington state voters.

California and Prop 8

In October, NOM and ProtectMarriage.com lost their bid to keep donors to the Proposition 8 campaign anonymous. The groups worked to pass Proposition 8, which repealed the state’s legalization of same-sex marriage in 2008. NOM had argued that disclosing its donors would chill free speech and that widespread violence against Prop 8 supporters would put its donors at risk.

But the judge in the case, U.S. District Judge Morrison England, a Bush appointee, found the evidence a bit thin.

[T]he vast majority of the incidents cited by Plaintiffs are arguably, as characterized by defendants, typical of any controversial campaign. For example, picketing, protesting, boycotting, distributing flyers, destroying yard signs and voicing dissent do not necessarily rise to the level of “harassment” or “reprisals,” especially in comparison to acts directed at groups in the past.

Moreover, a good portion of these actions are themselves forms of speech protected by the United States Constitution.

The court also rejected the idea that any activity directed at entities that backed Prop 8, such as the Mormon church, necessarily meant it was due to Prop 8.

“Plaintiffs have produced insufficient evidence that the more incendiary events on which they rely were connected to Proposition 8 or to gay marriage at all,” the judge wrote. “Rather, a number of these incidents were directed at the Mormon church, which, though a backer of California’s proposition, may also have been a target for any of a number of other reasons.”

And while NOM and other anti-gay marriage amendment backers said that the violence against them was widespread, the judge disagreed.

Accordingly, while Plaintiffs can point to a relatively few unsavory acts committed by extremists or criminals, these acts are so small in number, and in some instances their connection to plaintiffs’ supporters so attenuated, that they do not show a reasonable probability plaintiffs’ contributors will suffer the same fate. Given the grand scale of plaintiffs’ campaign and the massive (and national) support they garnered for their cause, plaintiffs’ limited evidence is simply insufficient to support a finding that disclosure of contributors’ names will lead to threats, harassment or reprisals.

The future in Minnesota
Government transparency advocates have been watching NOM’s actions in Minnesota very carefully. In addition to California, Washington, and Minnesota, NOM has also unsuccessfully challenged disclosure laws in Iowa, Maine, New York and Rhode Island.

“Proponents and opponents of same-sex marriage certainly are engaged in a heated debate,” wrote Common Cause Minnesota’s Mike Dean and Mark Ladov of the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York Universtiy School of Law in a column for the Duluth News Tribune. “But it is insulting to claim transparency would leave major campaign donors vulnerable to the violent intimidation tactics civil-rights activists faced in the era of Bull Connor.”

Dean and Ladov pointed back to the outcry when Target Corporation gave money to a group supporting an anti-gay marriage candidate.

“[R]emember how these same groups howled about so-called ‘harassment’ when gay-rights advocates called for a boycott of Target over contributions supporting Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer. But that isn’t harassment. It’s a boycott — one of the time-honored ways in which ordinary people, without access to wealthy corporate treasuries, can organize for change and make sure their voices are heard in the political process.”

The extension comes after a particularly vitriolic 60-day comment session on the rule that provoked the ire of dozens of trade and lobbyist groups. In an Op-Ed about the issue written to The Hill, Gary Shapiro, the president of the Consumer Electronics Association, said the regulations amount to “criminalizing efforts by government officials — and especially Executive Branch employees — to learn about business trends.” Politico put the clash succinctly, leading an article: “President Barack Obama isn’t finished with K Street.”

The Office of Government Ethics (OGE) has made the new deadline for comments about the rule Dec. 14 — after which the office will proceed with making final determinations. Comments received thus far by leading lobbyist and trade organizations as well as by individuals have been posted to the OGE website and are available for view by the public.

Unhappiness with the rule has centered on it whether it will prevent government officials from learning more about a particular industry or business organization. The Washington Times described it preventing “a representative from the Department of Transportation from attending the Auto Show in Detroit, for example, or a Federal Communications Commission employee from going to the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas.”

Craig Holman, government affairs lobbyist for Public Citizen, a good government group that supports the bill, says that assessment is not accurate. “In no way does this prevent members of congress and staffers and others to have communications with trade associations and others,” he said. He says that trade groups would have to charge admittance fees but that federal employees would still be free to attend.

Lobbying groups, though, say concern over gift-giving and comped trade show passes will affect more transactions than paid hotel rooms. They say programs, seminars and other events in which industry experts instruct government officials may become impractical and need to be overhauled.

A precautionary note on a prominent K-Street law firm‘s website describes how the rule might change lobbying culture:

No longer would a federal employee of any kind be able to accept a $15 lunch from a registered lobbyist or go to a [widely-attended gathering] put on (in whole or in part) by a registered lobbying organization. Nor would career executive branch employees any longer be able to accept social invitations from registered lobbyists or lobbying organizations, or enjoy meals or entertainment provided overseas by such individuals or entities.

A representative from another firm was recently quoted in The Hill outlining how government employees day-to-day lives might be jostled. “If you’re a rank-and-file member of the executive branch, and you’re attending a corporate event … you can’t have cheese,” he said. Groups opposed to the law say it will turn casual interactions into potential infractions.

Public Citizen — along with a group of public watchdog organizations that includes the Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause, Democracy 21 and U.S. PIRG — have argued for the rule and against maintaining that coziness between the executive branch and the lobbying industry. In a press release, the groups say current regulations have “allowed people with business pending before an agency from offering free gifts of food, entertainment and travel to agency employees.”

The OGE says the rule is needed to put a stop to “attendance at events, particularly social events, where the nexus to the government’s interest was attenuated.”

Industry groups are also outraged that the regulation makes exclusions for certain types of groups from the regulation, including non-profits, the news media and higher education institutions.

Non-profits in particular have come under the spotlight for being used as funnels for outside organizations to pay for gifts. A recent report found that non-profit spending on traveling junkets has spiked.

Current rules for lobbyist gifts break into two key categories depending on how far from Washington, DC the gift-giving occurs.

Government employees can receive individual gifts from lobbyists or lobbying organizations worth less than $20 up to a maximum of $50 per calendar year. The rule would set that limit to zero dollars.

If an employee is traveling more than 30 miles outside the D.C. area, they are allowed to accept gifts to attend “widely-attended gatherings” (WAGs) sponsored by lobbyist and trade associations. Gifts to attend those events also frequently include paying for  travel expenses, including airfare, hotel accommodations and more. The rule would severely limit that practice.

The issue of lobbyist gifts has come up repeatedly of late as notorious lobbyist Jack Abramoff has taken his case to the public that the lobbying industry is in need of reform. Abramoff served more than three years in a Federal prison after being convicted of crimes made during his tenure as a sought-after lobbyist on Capitol Hill.

A recent special in CBS aired Abramoff’s regulatory proposals. Many of the practices of which he formerly partook would be curbed by the rule.

Abramoff would provide freebies and gifts – looking for favors for his clients in return. He’d lavish certain congressmen and senators with access to private jets and junkets to the world’s great golf destinations like St. Andrews in Scotland. Free meals at his own upscale Washington restaurant and access to the best tickets to all the area’s sporting events; including two skyboxes at Washington Redskins games.

A bill recently introduced by congressmen from Pennsylvania and Illinois could have a far-reaching impact on the U.S. sugar industry, including American Crystal Sugar, a farmer-owned cooperative that locked out 1,300 union workers on Aug. 1.

Source: Gfpeck, Flickr

Members of Minnesota and North Dakota’s congressional delegations have repeatedly warned that the company’s lockout could help undermine the congressional consensus around protections for the sugar industry.

“There are members of Congress whose natural constituency is agriculture; some who see themselves as champions of business, and others who fight for workers,” Sen. Al Franken wrote in late August. “Knowing that the program has worked so well for so many years for the hardworking growers who produce such a large percentage of our nation’s sugar beets and for the dedicated workers and skilled management, who turn those beets into the highest quality sugar in the world, has played no small role in creating this consensus.”

Big Sugar has maintained support from Congress by continuously lining the campaign coffers of both Republicans and Democrats, although there is also a tangible discontent among industries that use sugar products, who find domestic prices to be too high. Those upset with American Crystal Sugar’s labor practices could join with these discontented industries to repeal the protections.

Enter Rep. Joe Pitts, R-Penn., and Danny Davis, D-Ill., who teamed up to introduce a bill that would protect the other sweet-tooth industries: candy companies that lie within their districts.

“We’ve heard from his constituents that the price of sugar is affecting business, it’s affecting jobs,” says Pitts spokesperson Andrew Wimer, who adds that Davis, the Chicago Democrat co-sponsoring the legislation, cites examples of factories that have shut their doors because of the high price of sugar.

The Free Market Sugar Act would repeal the sugar loan program and amend the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act (known as the Farm Bill), perhaps the most important piece of legislation impacting U.S. sugar interests. Written every five years, the Farm Bill helps sugar growers with farm subsidies (which some dismiss as “corporate welfare”) and a series of quotas that tightly control the supply of imported sugar, a benefit to the handful of American sugar producers who pocket around $1 billion in excess profits a year, and a detriment to candy companies that buy U.S. sugar at prices two to three times higher than the global market rate.

Federal legislation also calls for the sugar program to be operated on a no-cost basis, a provision some sugar insiders project will remain for years to come.

“In general, [the Free Market Sugar Act] seeks to reform the sugar program so that the government is not controlling how much sugar is produced and imported,” says Wimer. ”It loosens the controls on production and importation, so that the U.S. price for sugar can be more closely aligned with the world price.”

In addition to amending the sugar price support program, the bill pushes for more transparency in the sugar industry, and an overhaul of how it does business. If enacted, the bill would replace quota import provisions with a tariff rate quota. “Right now the USDA is tightly controlling how much raw cane sugar comes into the U.S.,” says Wimer. “Instead of blanket eliminating quotas, we are modifying it so it’s not as unfair to the current market.”

Pitts and Davis have also recently announced the formation of the Congressional Sugar Reform Caucus, a bipartisan group that also includes Sens. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., and Jean Shaheen, D-N.H.

Herman Cain has announced that he will attend the Republican Party of Sarasota’s “Statesman of the Year” dinner, to honor Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour.

GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain (Pic by Gage Skidmore, via Flickr)

Earlier this month, Barbour criticized Cain for his failure to “get the facts out” about the sexual harassment allegations him. Though Cain has denied any wrongdoing, he has not gone into details about the payoffs to ex-employees of the National Restaurant Association, of which he was once president.

Though the Association has confirmed that it paid financial settlements to two women who complained of sexual harassment, Cain has repeatedly refused to discuss the specifics of the cases — citing a confidentiality agreement.

“If you have a confidentiality agreement that keeps the public from finding out something that the public is interested in knowing the facts, you ought to go on and get the facts out,” Barbour said during an appearance on MSNBC’s Daily Rundown. “If a week from now, we’ve had one week of ‘the confidentiality agreement is keeping the facts from coming out,’ that’s not in Herman Cain’s interest.”

Though the allegations of sexual harassment have played a large role in Cain’s campaign, they at first didn’t apepar to make a big dent in his polling numbers — which remained high in the week following the accusations. But newly released numbers from a Politico/George Washington University poll show that Cain’s numbers appear to have slid considerably.

Via Politico:

A high-profile press conference held by one accuser, Sharon Bialek, and her attorney Gloria Allred last Monday seems to have been a tipping point.

Among likely Republican voters surveyed Sunday, Nov. 6, Cain led the field with 40 percent. On Monday, he was third with 22 percent. By Wednesday, just 19 percent of those surveyed said they supported Cain for the nomination.

“It does appear that the stories are certainly hurting him,” said Republican pollster Ed Goeas of the Tarrance Group, who helped conduct the bipartisan poll. “As this moves forward, I think it does become more and more a deal-breaker.”

The Republican Party of Sarasota dinner is scheduled for Sun., Nov. 27, and will be preceded by a VIP reception. Individual dinner tickets to the event start at $150.

Source: A still of Sen. Amy Klobuchar from the ad.

On its website, Demand Progress, a progressive group, says they have one goal for the ad: “We need to embarrass a key lawmaker to set an example for others, and make it clear that it’s not okay to shill for the entertainment industry.”

The ad targets the Commercial Felony Streaming Act, which would “makes unauthorized web streaming of copyrighted content a felony with a possible penalty of up to 5 years in prison,” according to Open Congress.

The ad is named “Bieber is Right” in reference to teen pop star Justin Bieber’s comments criticizing Klobuchar for the bill. It asks: “Why is Sen. Klobuchar’s top legislative priority an internet censorship bill that would risk putting ordinary internet users and even Justin Bieber behind bars?”

It’s also paid for by Fight for the Future, a technology rights group, and contains much footage from Occupy Wall Street rallies in Minnesota. Many other groups, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Center for Democracy and Technology, have opposed the legislation.

The act is supported by a host of entertainment and media companies, many of which gave generously to Democratic candidates, according to Open Congress.