In Alabama, comparisons to the civil rights battles of the 1960s are hard to avoid. From local press to the New York Times and beyond, reporters and those they interview are connecting the dots, not generally in a way flattering to the state.

The New York Times was blistering in an editorial published Monday, all but calling Alabama and its lawmakers racist.

Alabama is far from alone in passing a law whose express aim is misery and panic. States are expanding their power to hasten racial exclusion and family disintegration, to make a particular ethnic group of poor people disappear. The new laws come cloaked in talk of law and order; the bigotry beneath them is never acknowledged.

But if there is any place where bigotry does not go unrecognized, it is Alabama.

“It is a fear of folks who are not like us,” said Judge U. W. Clemon, a former state senator and Alabama’s first black federal judge, now retired. “Although the Hispanic population of the state is less than 5 percent, the leaders of the state were hell-bent on removing as much of that 4 percent as possible. And I think they’ve been fairly successful in scaring them out of the state of Alabama.”

If it was just the big-city national media piling on, that would be one thing, bu the local press has more than held its own in this regard.

From al.com:

The nation’s harshest immigration law… is creating nothing short of a “humanitarian crisis” that mirrors the fear and racism felt during the Jim Crow era, opponents of the law said Thursday.

During an afternoon news conference about Alabama’s immigration law, lawyers, educators and children’s advocates said the effects of the law mirror the fear and racism felt during the Jim Crow era and have led to thousands of children being kept home from school, pregnant women being afraid to give birth in a hospital and families having their water supply cut off.

When Alabama’s law was enacted, the Southern Poverty Law Center established a hotline to hear people’s concerns and offer guidance. The SPLC, which has taken a leading role in fighting the law, received more than 2000 calls in the first week the line was open.

The Center for American Progress Monday released a number of lists attempting to quantify the effects of the law.

Among the Center’s findings are that if only 10,000 of Alabama’s 120,000 undocumented immigrants quit or were forced out of their jobs, it would cost the state $40 million in lost productivity. If the federal government was to deport all 120,000, the Center says it would cost taxpayers $2.8 billion.

The Center’s study concluded that undocumented immigrants paid $130 million in taxes last year.

It’s well documented that farmers and Alabama’s agriculture sector in general have struggled mightily since the law went into effect. As both undocumented and documented Alabamans of Hispanic descent or appearance have fled the state, leaving farmers with no one to harvest crops.

One tomato farmer told PBS he had lost $300,000 so far. He’s hired new people to do the work, but few of them have lasted, saying either that the work is too hard, or the pay is too low.

Where do all the immigrants fleeing places like Alabama and Arizona go? any head to the small towns of the Midwest. There is nothing new about this migration to the Midwest, apparently. As small towns in Kansas and Nebraska lose residents to more prosperous places, people of Hispanic descent move in, opening businesses and stabilizing local economies. Mostly, they are welcomed, reports The New York Times. In many cases, when Hispanic children grow up in these small towns, they end up staying to raise their own families instead of moving on in the grand American tradition.

From Monday’s New York Times:

For generations, the story of the small rural town of the Great Plains, including the dusty tabletop landscape of western Kansas, has been one of exodus — of businesses closing, classrooms shrinking and, year after year, communities withering as fewer people arrive than leave and as fewer are born than are buried. That flight continues, but another demographic trend has breathed new life into the region.

Hispanics are arriving in numbers large enough to offset or even exceed the decline in the white population in many places. In the process, these new residents are reopening shuttered storefronts with Mexican groceries, filling the schools with children whose first language is Spanish and, for now at least, extending the lives of communities that seemed to be staggering toward the grave.

That demographic shift, seen in the findings of the 2010 census, has not been uniformly welcomed in places where steadiness and tradition are seen as central charms of rural life. Some longtime residents of Ulysses, where the population of 6,161 is now about half Hispanic, grumble over the cultural differences and say they feel like strangers in their hometown. But the alternative, community leaders warn, is unacceptable.

…

There has long been a strong Hispanic presence throughout the region, which is rich with difficult work in meatpacking plants and on farms, feedlots and oil fields. But over the last decade, as their population in the rural Great Plains spiked by 54 percent — a figure comparable to gains in metro areas in the region — Hispanic residents have pushed from hubs like nearby Dodge City, Garden City and Liberal into ever smaller communities, buying property on the cheap, enticed, many say, by the opportunity to live quiet lives in communities more similar to those in which they were raised.

In the sparsely populated western half of Kansas, every county but one experienced a decline in the non-Hispanic white population, two-thirds of them by more than 10 percent.

At the same time, a vast majority experienced double-digit growth in Hispanic population, more than offsetting the declines in seven counties and many smaller cities and towns. Those places with the highest percentage of Hispanic residents tend to have the lowest average ages, the highest birth rates and the most stable school populations.

A little-noticed bill by Rep. Tim Walz is gaining national attention this week after CBS’ “60 Minutes” aired an exposé on insider trading by members of Congress. Walz, along with Rep. Louise Slaughter of New York, introduced a bill to make the practice illegal in March.

The “60 Minutes” report alleged that some members of Congress were benefiting from insider information, allegations that leaders like House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and House Speaker John Boehner have denied. The allegations contend that members of Congress have bought and sold stock in companies that pending legislation would impact, which is legal.

Walz introduced his bill to end that type of insider trading and make it illegal for members of Congress, the same as it is for corporate leaders.

“This is about faith in the markets, it’s about faith in democracy, it’s quite honestly what I think irritates people if they believe someone is gaming the system, it hurts all of us,” Walz told KEYC News.

Although the bill, titled the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act, has only one Republican among its nine sponsors, Walz’ bill is already getting some measured support from Republicans.

“I am for increased disclosure,” said Majority Leader Eric Cantor. “If there’s any sense of impropriety or any appearance of that, we should take extra steps to make sure that the public’s cynicism is addressed.”

And it’s become a campaign issue in Minnesota.

Brian Barnes, a DFL candidate challenging Republican Rep. Erik Paulsen in Minnesota’s Third Congressional District, called on Paulsen to work to end insider trading in Congress.

“This reprehensible practice—which would land business people in jail—should be banned immediately,” Barnes said. “Therefore, I am asking Rep. Erik Paulsen to join with me in condemning the members of both parties who have engaged this insider trading they themselves made legal. I am also calling on the congressman to sponsor legislation to make this disgusting conduct what it should be—criminal.”

Photo: Flickr/Freedom To Marry

Conducted beginning last summer by the State Review of Oil & Natural Gas Environmental Regulations (STRONGER), the review praised some of the state’s fracking regs, especially after they were updated throughout 2007 and 2008 and implemented in 2009. But it also found plenty of room for improvement.

Dubbed the Colorado Hydraulic Fracturing State Review (pdf), the independent private-public review had been cited by some observers as a possible impetus for Gov. John Hickenlooper somewhat reluctantly agreeing this summer that the state oil and gas regulatory agency should draft a public disclosure rule for fracking chemicals.

That rulemaking process by the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) is under way, with a draft disclosure rule scheduled to be released and published in the Colorado Register (pdf) on Nov. 10. Hearings are slated for December, and COGCC regulators hope to have a rule finalized by the end of the year.

“The most significant piece of the STRONGER report is about what is not included,” the environmental group Western Resource Advocates stated in a press release. “The report does not address Colorado’s draft disclosure rule for fracking chemicals; a proposal to allow the oil and gas industry to self-regulate on its FRAC-Focus website; or the need to increase residential setback requirements from the current minimum levels (150 feet for rural areas; 350 feet for urban areas).

“These issues are vital to ensure the safety of all Coloradans, regardless of where they live, and some need to be undertaken immediately.”

Frac Focus is a voluntary website where oil and gas operators can list fracking chemicals, and operators in Colorado started using the site last spring. Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is currently exempt from the Safe Drinking Water Act after Congress passed the Energy Policy Act in 2005. Companies want to keep chemical ingredients secret for proprietary reasons, but many politicians, conservation groups and healthcare professionals contend the formulas should be disclosed publicly.

One of the revised rules Colorado adopted in 2008 after a long and contentious rulemaking process was a regulation requiring companies to keep an inventory of chemicals onsite during drilling and fracking operations and make that inventory available to regulators and healthcare professionals upon request.

“This rule allows government officials and medical professionals to investigate and address allegations of chemical contamination associated with hydraulic fracturing, while protecting proprietary information,” the STRONGER report states.

But the report went on to raise concerns about water supplies for fracking (up to a million gallons per well) and recommended a comprehensive state evaluation of available water resources as they related to fracking operations, which occur in about 90 percent of natural gas wells.

“Given the significant water supply issues in this arid region, this project should also include an evaluation of whether or not availability of water for hydraulic fracturing is an issue and, in the event that water supply is an issue, how best to maximize water reuse and recycling for oil and gas hydraulic fracturing,” the report states in its executive summary.

Setbacks – the distance between drilling rigs and homes, schools and other public buildings – have been an issue for years, with some saying they should be pushed out to 1,000 feet. Industry critics have long argued that the issue of setbacks was the one gaping hole in the revised drilling regs adopted in 2009.

“There is an urgent need to increase Colorado’s residential setbacks,” said Mike Chiropolos, lands program director at Western Resource Advocates. “The single most important thing that Colorado can do to protect homeowners in the gas patch is to increase the distance between drilling rigs and our homes.”

The nation’s second largest private company and its subsidiaries are also in Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, Texas and just about every other state in the nation. But the locale where Koch Industries is making its presence felt the most isn’t a state at all. It’s Washington, D.C.

The Wichita-based conglomerate has spent a fortune lobbying for its oil, gas, mineral and chemical interests this past decade while bankrolling the campaigns of sympathetic congressmen. It has paid special attention to lawmakers that make up the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Koch Industries is diversified — it manufactures household staples such as Angel Soft toilet paper, Brawny paper towels, Dixie cups, Lycra fabrics and Stainmaster carpets — but its main investment is in oil.

While the influence of Koch Industries has been ongoing for years, it wasn’t until after 2008 that it captured mainstream attention for the tornado of dollars it funneled into campaign coffers as the Democrats — buoyed by House, Senate and White House control — pushed for cap and trade. What followed was a conservative takeover of the House in 2010 that capitalized on widespread voter frustration with the job-hemorrhaging economy and the government’s inability to put a stop to it.

In the 2010 elections, Koch Industries and its partners spent tens of millions of dollars to elect politicians who would roll back environmental and financial regulations that benefit their businesses.

The men behind the curtain are Charles and David Koch who, with an estimated net worth of $25 billion a piece, are tied for fourth in Forbes magazine’s annual list of The Richest People in America.

There’s no place like a second home

Increasingly the Koch brothers, both in their 70s, are becoming visible in Colorado, where they own trophy homes in Aspen and throw lavish laissez faire strategy sessions with captains of industry. This summer they convened the Republican Governors Association’s annual summit in Aspen, where they vetted Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s right-wing mettle weeks before he announced his bid for the presidency.

A month before in Beaver Creek, the Koch brothers declared they were all in for this election cycle. At a private function honoring the likes of Charles Schwab for donating one million dollars or more to defeat President Obama, David Koch warned the 2012 election would be “the mother of all wars.”

Their businesses also have a foothold in Colorado. Koch Mineral Services LLC, Koch Chemical Technology Group LLC and Flint Hills Resources LP each operate facilities along the Front Range.

Meanwhile, a third brother (there are four altogether) William Koch, has also made a name for himself in the Rockies. He marches to the beat of his own drummer and doesn’t always agree with his slightly older twin, David, and the eldest, Charles. But they all share a common bond: extreme wealth.

Even though his net worth isn’t that of his richer brothers — it is estimated at $4 billion – “Wild Bill” owns a bigger house than his brothers in Aspen. He gobbled up four properties in the area — including a 17,000-square-foot lodge — for $51 million four years ago. His brothers own Victorians in the West End. A short helicopter ride away, Bill Koch owns another mountain paradise. It overlooks the Ragged Range, a dozen miles upstream from a mine in Somerset controlled by his company, Florida-based Oxbow Carbon & Minerals Holdings. Using state-of-the-art long-wall mining technology, Oxbow extracts five million tons of low-sulfur coal from the mine each year for electricity production.

Koch’s spread outside of Somerset is something else.

Known as Bear Ranch, it is under development with plans for a train station, saloon, firehouse and other buildings to compliment a pair of huge homes. It is also the site of a controversial land swap that will require an act of Congress for it to be completed.

The three Koch brothers are pouring a lot of cash into Colorado. They are lining the pockets of real estate agents and construction workers while consuming other goods and services to support their lifestyles. They are also giving money to politicians. A new analysis reveals the Kochs and their employees made more than $200,000 in campaign contributions in the state over the last five years. When an anti-tax group the Kochs founded is factored into the equation, the amount is much higher.

U.S. Rep. Cory Gardner is currently the biggest beneficiary of the Kochs’ generosity in Colorado, having raked in at least $13,300 from Koch and Oxbow in the 2010 and 2012 election cycles. The anti-tax nonprofit the Kochs founded, Americans for Prosperity, gave Gardner an additional $302,000, according to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

So far in the 2012 election cycle, Gardner and U.S. Reps. Doug Lamborn and Scott Tipton — all Republicans — appear to be the only congressmen to have received Koch or Oxbow contributions, but a review of previous election cycles shows Democrats benefit from the companies’ giving as well. Sens. Michael Bennet and Mark Udall have each received funding from Koch interests in the past. Bill Koch, his wife and Oxbow employees donated nearly $70,000 to ex-Rep. John Salazar, a Democrat.

But the scales tip to the right when all the Koch and Oxbow money is calculated. So despite having received and solicited funds from the Kochs, the Democrats use the Kochs as political ammo.

“We’ve seen that the votes and actions of Republicans are for sale to the highest bidder,” said Democratic state chair Rick Palacio. “With Koch money flowing to Cory Gardner, Doug Lamborn and Scott Tipton, D.C. interests are able to trump the needs of our communities here in Colorado. That’s bad news for their constituents in the short term, but as these issues become known, I’m confident that Coloradans will send a strong message about this kind of corruption by voting them out of office.”

Messages left for the Kochs, Gardner and Americans for Prosperity were not returned.

Follow the yellow-bricked pipeline

The non-partisan group Public Campaign compiled data for The Colorado Independent that shows Koch and Oxbow campaign contributions in the state have nearly doubled in each of the last three election cycles, going from at least $31,400 in 2006 to at least $60,900 in 2008 to at least $111,200 in 2010.

And that doesn’t include Americans for Prosperity, which is spending freely in Colorado. Just last week Americans for Prosperity sponsored a bus tour that rolled through the state, reminding residents of the vast coal resources in Craig and the potential for more U.S. oil and natural gas drilling.

Colorado is far from the only state where the Kochs are investing in political capital. Koch Industries contributed to 62 of the 87 new members of the U.S. House of Representatives in 2010 and, over the last decade, it is the largest political donor in the energy sector, outspending Exxon Mobil and Chevron.

One congressman who won’t be receiving any gifts from the Kochs anytime soon is U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., the top Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, who is calling for an investigation into Koch Industries’ denials that it stands to profit from the Keystone XL pipeline.

“When I first raised this issue in May, representatives from Koch denied any interest in the pipeline and Chairman Upton called the idea that there could be a link between Koch and the pipeline an ‘outrageous accusation’ and a ‘blatant political sideshow,’” Waxman wrote in a recent letter to committee chairmen Fred Upton, R-Mich., and Ed Whitfield, R-Ky. “Recently, however, I have become aware of evidence that appears to contradict the assertions of the Koch representatives and Chairman Upton. If members of the Committee were misled by Koch, that is a serious matter that deserves prompt and thorough investigation.”

Republicans on the committee are pressuring the White House to quickly approve TransCanada Corp.’s pipeline, which would transport crude oil from Canada’s oil sands to U.S. Gulf Coast refineries.

“It may seem unusual for Congress to have to publicly vote on a bill that simply asks the president to do his job; unfortunately, such action is warranted as the long-delayed Keystone XL pipeline continues to languish and workers continue to wait for the Obama administration to make a decision,” the Republicans said in a group statement last week.

Earlier this year, the Los Angeles Times noted that Koch Industries and its employees together were the largest single oil and gas donor to members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, contributing $279,500 to 22 of the committee’s 31 Republicans, and $32,000 to five Democrats. Gardner is on the committee, along with Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo., who the Kochs don’t sponsor.

Nine of the 12 new Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee signed a pledge distributed by Americans for Prosperity to oppose legislation designed to regulate greenhouse gases. Gardner and Tipton have signed the pledge. Gardner is on the record as a climate change denier.

Lions, tigers and polar bears — oh my!

The Kochs are dumping money into academia and right-wing think tanks that are vigorously targeting environmental regulations. Koch-funded groups including the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation and the National Association of Manufacturers have tangled with the federal government for listing the polar bear as an endangered species, and Koch-supported scientists contradict the majority of peer-reviewed scientists who say humans are warming the planet.

Greenpeace estimates the Kochs spent more than $50 million since 1998 on climate science attacks, and the Center for Responsive Politics reports the Kochs spent $8 million on lobbying last year alone.

The CATO Institute, which Charles Koch founded and continues to fund, is a consistent critic of climate science and its senior fellows are regularly interviewed on talk shows and in newspapers. Their efforts may be working. Over the last two years, Gallup polls indicate a growing number of Americans don’t see global warming as a serious threat to their standard of living. Greenpeace largely attributes the change to the work of scientists who receive funding from the fossil fuel industry.

This all comes at a time when weather is getting wackier, new heat records are becoming the norm and Bengal tigers and African lions are among the latest species now facing the threat of extinction as their habitat is further diminished by a global human population that is now more than seven billion strong.

But the Kochs aren’t seeing a return on all of their investments. Richard Muller, a physics professor at the University of California at Berkeley, was a climate science skeptic who added legitimacy to the Kochs’ cause. The brothers gave Muller a grant that helped him launch the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project. What the professor found is that not only is the earth’s surface warming, it is doing so at an accelerating rate. He wrote about his findings in a Wall Street Journal op-ed.

Off to see the wizards

Who is giving exactly what to whom is sometimes hard to pin down.

Colorado Ethics Watch reports it has obtained evidence Americans for Prosperity spent $100,000 on TV ads targeting recent Colorado Springs mayoral candidate Richard Skorman and did not disclose it. Luis Toro, director of Ethics Watch, said Under the Fair Campaign Practices Act, which was adopted by ordinance to govern Colorado Springs municipal elections, groups that pay for “electioneering communications” must disclose any spending in excess of $1,000, as well as the identity of any contributor who provided more than $250. Americans for Prosperity began airing the TV ads in April but it hasn’t been disclosed and the Colorado Springs clerk and recorder hasn’t taken any action.

“The more fundamental problem is the city of Colorado Springs won’t enforce its laws,” said Toro, adding that, in his mind, the nondisclosure of the TV ad campaigns is “legally indefensible.”

Exceptions to rules often crop up in situations where large sums of money are involved.

During the time Oxbow was generously giving to Salazar an exemption to the 2001 Clinton Roadless Rule was made for the company to bulldoze into a roadless area to drill wells for methane. It helped that Oxbow had support from Delta County residents who saw the mine as a boon to their economy. Salazar also championed the Bear Ranch land swap but he was unable to get it done before Tipton unseated him. Shortly after taking office this year Tipton indicated Bear Ranch is on his radar.

Over the summer, when Charles and David Koch came out against a bipartisan bill promoted by oil magnate T. Boone Pickens that would have awarded tax credits for natural gas use in commercial vehicles, three Colorado Republican congressmen — Gardner, Tipton and Mike Coffman — who were sponsoring it abruptly removed their names from the legislation saying it was unfair to competitors.

It didn’t go unnoticed that two of the three of them had received contributions from the Kochs.

How contributions influence political and scientific decisions isn’t easy to discern.

“It’s hard to prove quid pro quo but clearly businesses — whether it is Koch Industries or other businesses — aren’t making these donations out of altruism,” said Steve Ellis, vice president for Taxpayers for Common Sense. “They are trying to either sway someone’s position or get people re-elected who already support their position. That’s the challenge when you look at these issues: Is it the chicken or the egg? Clearly they aren’t going to give to someone that doesn’t support their interests. The Kochs are certainly not naïve to the way the game is played. And they’re not alone.”

–
For more stories in our series “Campaign Cash: Outing the Corporations,” click here. 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, visit CampaignCash.org or follow #CampaignCash on Twitter.

He termed the opposition of the restaurant groups “more of the same,” saying those groups represent large corporations like McDonald’s, more than they do people like him.

Bailey owns Parsley, a small mostly vegetarian, mostly organic sandwich, salad, soup and smoothie restaurant at 11th and Cherokee in Denver. In business 3+ years, Bailey said he does not have a formal sick day policy, but tries to do the right thing by his employees.

Parsley customer Kate Ross also attended the press conference Thursday at the restaurant. “The idea of cooks and servers without paid sick days handling my food makes me feel kind of sick right now, just thinking about it,” she said.

Earlier this week, supporters of the initiative held another press conference blasting the initiative’s opponents for relying on huge donations from out of state groups like the National Restaurant Association, which has contributed at least $100,000 to fight the initiative. If passed, the legislation would require employers to give one hour of paid sick time for every 30 hours worked up to 9 days a years per employee for a business with 10 or more employees and 5 days for companies with 9 or fewer employees.

If there is one thing you can say about this ballot issue it’s that the gloves came off a long time ago. As proponents point to all the out of state money being spent by opponents, the No on 300 groups is sending it out its own releases and holding its own press conferences to decry the out of state money spent by supporters. Supporters say that money, while coming from a national organization, was raised locally.

No sooner does the pro 300 group trot someone out to talk about the public health aspects of sick people going to work in places like restaurants, nursing homes and day care centers than the opponents bring out their own experts to say there is no public health impact from sick people handling food.

From the pro side: “As a retired physician, I know that the lack of paid sick leave is a public health problem–and that’s why passing Initiative 300 is so important,” said Manny Salzman, MD. “When workers don’t have paid sick days, contagious illnesses like the flue spread through our workplaces, nursing homes, schools and communities. I notice that the people who have been so vocal against the measure–like Governor Hickenlooper, Mayor Hancock, legislators and some councilmembers–actually have paid sick days.”

Opponents shot right back with a press release of their own, quoting a doctor of their own:

From a release issued Thursday:

CU Professor of infectious diseases and public health, Dr. Frank Judson, criticized Initiative 300 proponents for using scare tactics and false claims to campaign.

“Public health education is a serious issue that should not be abused to score political points,” said Dr. Judson, the former director of Denver Public Health. “It has been extremely disappointing to see a campaign mislead the public with false claims of communicable diseases prevention in the workplace.”

Dr. Judson served 18 years as the Director of the Denver Department of Public Health. He is a professor in the Department of Medicine and the Colorado School of Public Health, University of Colorado, Denver, and just completed a four-year term on the Centers for Disease Control’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).

Denver Mayor Michael Hancock even filmed an ad for opponents.

Bailey panned the ad during Thursday’s event: “The mayor says the law is poorly worded. If that is his excuse, we would have very few laws. I’m concerned the mayor doesn’t want to help sick people. It confuses me a little.”

He said the mayor will be paid 100 percent of his salary even if he’s home sick. “The idea that someone who makes $10 an hour or less shouldn’t get paid sick time is ridiculous.”

“Having opposed the original Iraq war authorization in 2002, I am pleased with today’s announcement that U.S. troops will withdraw fully from Iraq by the end of the year,” Democratic Rep. Diana DeGette said in a prepared statement.

Sen. Mark Udall

“Our engagement in Iraq has been a testament to the unflappable courage of our men and women in uniform, but it has also proven costly — claiming far too many lives and misdirecting critical military and financial resources from where they were most needed.”

Total withdrawal came as a result of a breakdown in negotiations with the Iraqi government that would have left a training force in place in exchange for immunity from prosecution for U.S. troops.

“I remain concerned about the security situation in Iraq and believe that keeping a limited number of U.S. troops in place to continue training and assistance would have helped sustain U.S. and Iraqi progress in stemming violence,” Democratic Sen. Mark Udall said in a release. “As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I will continue to monitor the situation closely.”

Udall, then a member of the House, also voted against funding the initial war effort, although he later voted to appropriate funds as the campaign continued for nearly a decade, costing 4,400 American lives and more than $1 trillion.

“I voted against the Iraq war, and I still believe that it ultimately harmed what should have been our military’s top priority – our mission in Afghanistan,” Udall said. “However, once our forces were committed in Iraq, abandoning that country would have risked the security of the entire region.”

Leaving troops in Iraq without immunity does not make sense, Udall added.

“It is ultimately unacceptable to expect our troops to provide that assistance without immunity from prosecution in Iraqi courts, which has become a sticking point between U.S. and Iraqi negotiators,” he said. “Our troops have fought and died to establish a functioning democratic government in Iraq, and now we must respect the wishes of Iraq’s leaders.”

Senator Michael Bennet issued this statement:

“Our troops have performed bravely and effectively in Iraq and accomplished everything that was asked of them, securing communities and creating the space for democratic change to begin to take root. Our gratitude for their selfless service, and the sacrifice of their families, cannot be overstated. I welcome the President’s announcement that – after nine long years, $1 trillion and 1 million service members deployed – he will keep his promise to withdraw all U.S. forces from Iraq by the end of the year.

“Today is an occasion to again honor the service of those we have lost and recommit ourselves to our obligation to provide returning troops with the health care and support they have earned after a decade of war.

“This announcement represents another significant milestone for the country and U.S. forces, including the killing of Osama bin Laden. However, serious threats against the United States remain, and we must continue to work to ensure we have the best-trained and best-equipped military in the world.”

No Republican members of the Colorado congressional delegation had issued a statement as of Friday afternoon.

The discussion touches on stories reported by the Michigan Messenger on a new Brennan Center for Justice report on the new rash of voter laws and on the fact that Michigan appears to be violating federal laws that seek to expand voter registration there.

Note: At the end of the discussion, Tomasic refers to the Denver District judge who ruled against Gessler on the matter of inactive voter ballots as “she.” He meant “he,” as in Judge Brian Whitney.

“Apologies, Judge Whitney! I had Denver County Clerk Debra Johnson’s face playing across my mind,” says Tomasic.

Got a tip? Story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

Support is especially strong among liberals and young people, but support is strong especially among men. Only 46 percent of women favor legalization. All regions of the country favor legalizing marijuana except the south.

Neill Franklin, executive director of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition and a retired Baltimore narcotics cops, said, “The Obama administration’s escalation of the ‘war on drugs’ and its attacks on state medical marijuana laws are only giving more and more Americans the opportunity to realize just how ridiculous and harmful our prohibition-based drug laws are. These numbers from Gallup, as well as the California Medical Association’s recent endorsement of marijuana legalization, show that momentum is on the side of reformers, so it’s no wonder the drug warriors are getting scared and ramping up their attacks. People are clearly waking up to the fact that we can no longer afford the fiscal and human costs of this failed ‘war on drugs.’ Savvy politicians would do well to take heed,” he said in a prepared statement.

Colorado Congressman Jared Polis has introduced legislation that would legalize marijuana at the federal level, but allow individual states to set their own laws.

In Colorado, there is likely to be an initiative on the ballot in 2012 that would legalize possession of small amounts of marijuana by adults.

As Mayor of this great city, I strongly believe in the public’s right to free speech and assembly. As an elected official, it is my responsibility to balance the First Amendment with concerns for public safety and public health.

That is why I ordered the Denver Police Department to support the Colorado State Patrol’s operation to disperse hundreds of protesters occupying Lincoln Park. The protesters were violating State statutes and City ordinances, and it was necessary to consistently apply the law and discontinue this illegal conduct on public property.

I will continue to support the protesters’ First Amendment rights. We will make every effort to maintain open and amicable conversations with Occupy Denver, while encouraging them to exercise lawful options and hold their protests within the legal parameters of both state and city law.

I also want to commend the Denver Police Department and Colorado State Patrol for their professionalism throughout this operation.

One of the protesters, Jeannie Hartley agreed with Hancock that the arrests were handled as well as could have been expected. “People were handled as respectfully as possible. There was no teargas,” she said.

“Our movement is stronger now than ever before,” she said. “The removal of tents will not slow us down. We are united in all the things we believe are wrong in the country.”

She said she didn’t know if people would be camping out tonight, and if they are, she didn’t know where that would take place.

“There were a lot of homeless people with us, and I’m really worried about them,” she said.

The Occupy Denver camp had attracted dozens of homeless people, probably drawn by the safety and social aspects of being in a group.

“The message of Occupy Denver was never about tents. It was about economic inequality,” said Alan Franklin, spokesperson for ProgressNow Colorado. “I think the occupiers will find a legal and peaceful way to express that going forward.

“I think the police showed restraint in handling the situation,” Franklin said.

Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler

This week’s report consisted primarily of an interview with Pueblo County Clerk and Recorder Gilbert Ortiz.

Maddow introduces the segment by saying that Gessler’s efforts to reduce voter turnout in Colorado is part of a concerted, sustained national attack on voting.

“Sometimes it comes down to one person, one official, doing what he or she thinks is the right thing, and doing it right now,” she said about Ortiz’s decision to mail ballots to American soldiers serving overseas.

She said Ortiz was in the courtroom Friday when a judge ruled that county clerks in Colorado could mail ballots to inactive voters, and that he immediately got on the phone to his office and ordered that the ballots be sent.

Ortiz did not return a call seeking further comment.

Gessler’s rise to national prominence began when he sued Denver’s clerk and recorder in order to force her not to mail ballots to inactive voters. Gessler said he was trying to ensure fair elections, which he said would not happen if some counties mailed to inactive voters and others didn’t.

Critics of the move, though, saw it as an effort to reduce voting by Democrats and minorities and as such saw it as part of a national effort to reduce the number of such voters prior to the 2012 election.

Pueblo Clerk Ortiz joined the lawsuit as a defendant, and held off on mailing ballots to soldiers and other inactive voters until Friday when a judge ruled the ballots could go out.