June 8, 2010 1:18 PM
- Text
Soft Money Boosts McCain Campaign
(CBS)
The Skinny is Keach Hagey's take on the top news of the day and the best of the Internet.
Ahoy! Here come the swift boats once again, paddling the political waters with silent oars made of soft money. In the 2004 election, shadowy advocacy groups like the one that attacked John Kerry's war record, used their non-profit status to skirt campaign finance rules and do serious damage to John Kerry's campaign.
This time around, there's an ironic twist.
The New York Times reports that a new variant of these independent entities, the Foundation for a Secure and Prosperous America, has been paying for ads in South Carolina that glowingly portray John McCain, whose name is on the campaign finance laws the group was created to skirt. Kind of makes the head hurt, doesn't it?
The ads were ostensibly urging citizens of South Carolina to urge their congressional representatives to pass the Wounded Warriors Act, and happened to show positive images of McCain in the process. But the act has attracted nearly unanimous bipartisan support in Congress, and hardly needed the extra help.
The group that paid for the advertisement operates separately of McCain's campaign, but was set up and financed by his supporters seeking to help him as much as possibly up to the limits of the law.
As a registered 501(c)(4) nonprofit corporation, it is allowed to raise and spend unlimited amounts from individuals without any disclosure, as long as it can argue that it is more concerned with the promotion of an issue - like the final passage of the Wounded Warriors bill - than the election of a candidate.
McCain immediately called on the group to stop the ads when its existence was first reported by the Associated Press on Friday. He said he has not spoken to the group's leader because he does not know what his involvement is. But his opponents aren't buying it.
The situation in South Carolina is likely the tip of the very pricey and very opaque soft money iceberg in this election cycle, the Times reports. That's because in June, the Supreme Court struck down a ban in the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance laws on political advertisements by corporations, citing free speech.
In addition, the Federal Election Commission has made it harder to operate for the outside advocacy groups, so-called 527 groups, who are named after the tax code section that allows the to try to influence elections so long as they disclose their donors and expenses. (It was a 527 group that swift boated Kerry.)
As a result, the soft money is flowing away from 527s toward less transparent sources like the Foundation for a Secure and Prosperous America, whose vague name is about all the public gets to know about it.
Gold Market Shines With Aura Of Dread
The last time the price of gold spiked to the levels it's been hovering around lately, the Los Angeles Times reports, soon-to-be-ex President Jimmy Carter was lurching into the last year of his economically troubled tenure. It was January of 1980, and the only thing less popular than the runaway inflation rate and collapsing dollar was disco.
Last Friday, gold closed at $852.50 an ounce, a bit shy of the Carter-era record of $850, but closing in fast. While most bull markets make investors happy, this one fills their bellies with animal fear.
"If investors are turning back to this ancient form of money, one implication is that they're losing faith in the modern financial system," the Times explains.
In other words, gold's rise heralds the end of days.
Heading for the bunker is not an entirely illogical response, the paper notes. After all, the dollar's in the toilet, banks are reeling from massive mortgage defaults and the stock market is melting down once again. Many investors are noting the apocalyptic writing on the wall and lining up for their shiny bits of metal.
Of course, there's a chance that it's just a phase. The paper notes that, adjusted for inflation, the price of gold is far from its peak, which would be about $2,200 in today's dollars. And much of what's been driving the price up since 2000 has been good stuff, like rising consumer wealth in China.
Larry Heim, whose gold-investment business has seen its client base double in the past year, puts it this way: "It's not the right thing to own forever. It will be the right thing to own for the next few years, though."
So apparently, like Fed boss Ben Bernanke said last week, it's gonna get worse before it gets better. May as well have something sparkly to keep you entertained during the ride.
Big Stars Take The Big Bucks, And Leave Writers (And Everybody Else) With Crumbs
One of the most popular images from the writers strike, now heading for its second week, is that of a movie star's face - often adorably unkempt in baseball cap and sweatshirt - lining up in solidarity on the picket line.
But the New York Times reports that behind this symbolic support is a grand theft on the part of the movie industry's biggest names that's draining profitability from the whole business of big moviemaking.
"As it turns out, the pot of money that the producers and writers are fighting over may have already been pocketed by the entertainment industry's biggest talent," Times reporter Michael Cieply writes.
That's the conclusion of a new study of the financial dynamics of moviemaking by the research company Global Media Intelligence in association with Merrill Lynch. The study finds that big movies don't make money anymore because much of the income gets paid out to stars, directors and producers in ballooning participation deals. A participation is a share in the gross revenue, not the profit, of a movie. Major studios "in theory" give away as much as a quarter of a film's receipts under such arrangements.
For example, a Hanks, Cruise or Carrey whose movie brings $600 million back to the studio from all sources might easily wind up with a $20 million salary, and an additional $50 million on the back end, with an A-list director and producer raking in tens of millions more.
The study looked at all films distributed in recent years by the six major studios and found that releases last years would yield a $1.9 billion loss after collecting revenue from an entire first cycle of sales to domestic theaters, foreign theaters, home video, pay television and every other source of income.
The effect of participation deals is huge, said Roger Smith, a former film executive who worked on the report, because "they can easily be paid out on money-losing pictures."
A NOTE TO READERS: The Skinny is available via e-mail. Click here and follow the directions to register to receive it in your inbox each weekday morning.
Ahoy! Here come the swift boats once again, paddling the political waters with silent oars made of soft money. In the 2004 election, shadowy advocacy groups like the one that attacked John Kerry's war record, used their non-profit status to skirt campaign finance rules and do serious damage to John Kerry's campaign.
This time around, there's an ironic twist.
The New York Times reports that a new variant of these independent entities, the Foundation for a Secure and Prosperous America, has been paying for ads in South Carolina that glowingly portray John McCain, whose name is on the campaign finance laws the group was created to skirt. Kind of makes the head hurt, doesn't it?
The ads were ostensibly urging citizens of South Carolina to urge their congressional representatives to pass the Wounded Warriors Act, and happened to show positive images of McCain in the process. But the act has attracted nearly unanimous bipartisan support in Congress, and hardly needed the extra help.
The group that paid for the advertisement operates separately of McCain's campaign, but was set up and financed by his supporters seeking to help him as much as possibly up to the limits of the law.
As a registered 501(c)(4) nonprofit corporation, it is allowed to raise and spend unlimited amounts from individuals without any disclosure, as long as it can argue that it is more concerned with the promotion of an issue - like the final passage of the Wounded Warriors bill - than the election of a candidate.
McCain immediately called on the group to stop the ads when its existence was first reported by the Associated Press on Friday. He said he has not spoken to the group's leader because he does not know what his involvement is. But his opponents aren't buying it.
The situation in South Carolina is likely the tip of the very pricey and very opaque soft money iceberg in this election cycle, the Times reports. That's because in June, the Supreme Court struck down a ban in the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance laws on political advertisements by corporations, citing free speech.
In addition, the Federal Election Commission has made it harder to operate for the outside advocacy groups, so-called 527 groups, who are named after the tax code section that allows the to try to influence elections so long as they disclose their donors and expenses. (It was a 527 group that swift boated Kerry.)
As a result, the soft money is flowing away from 527s toward less transparent sources like the Foundation for a Secure and Prosperous America, whose vague name is about all the public gets to know about it.
Gold Market Shines With Aura Of Dread
The last time the price of gold spiked to the levels it's been hovering around lately, the Los Angeles Times reports, soon-to-be-ex President Jimmy Carter was lurching into the last year of his economically troubled tenure. It was January of 1980, and the only thing less popular than the runaway inflation rate and collapsing dollar was disco.
Last Friday, gold closed at $852.50 an ounce, a bit shy of the Carter-era record of $850, but closing in fast. While most bull markets make investors happy, this one fills their bellies with animal fear.
"If investors are turning back to this ancient form of money, one implication is that they're losing faith in the modern financial system," the Times explains.
In other words, gold's rise heralds the end of days.
Heading for the bunker is not an entirely illogical response, the paper notes. After all, the dollar's in the toilet, banks are reeling from massive mortgage defaults and the stock market is melting down once again. Many investors are noting the apocalyptic writing on the wall and lining up for their shiny bits of metal.
Of course, there's a chance that it's just a phase. The paper notes that, adjusted for inflation, the price of gold is far from its peak, which would be about $2,200 in today's dollars. And much of what's been driving the price up since 2000 has been good stuff, like rising consumer wealth in China.
Larry Heim, whose gold-investment business has seen its client base double in the past year, puts it this way: "It's not the right thing to own forever. It will be the right thing to own for the next few years, though."
So apparently, like Fed boss Ben Bernanke said last week, it's gonna get worse before it gets better. May as well have something sparkly to keep you entertained during the ride.
Big Stars Take The Big Bucks, And Leave Writers (And Everybody Else) With Crumbs
One of the most popular images from the writers strike, now heading for its second week, is that of a movie star's face - often adorably unkempt in baseball cap and sweatshirt - lining up in solidarity on the picket line.
But the New York Times reports that behind this symbolic support is a grand theft on the part of the movie industry's biggest names that's draining profitability from the whole business of big moviemaking.
"As it turns out, the pot of money that the producers and writers are fighting over may have already been pocketed by the entertainment industry's biggest talent," Times reporter Michael Cieply writes.
That's the conclusion of a new study of the financial dynamics of moviemaking by the research company Global Media Intelligence in association with Merrill Lynch. The study finds that big movies don't make money anymore because much of the income gets paid out to stars, directors and producers in ballooning participation deals. A participation is a share in the gross revenue, not the profit, of a movie. Major studios "in theory" give away as much as a quarter of a film's receipts under such arrangements.
For example, a Hanks, Cruise or Carrey whose movie brings $600 million back to the studio from all sources might easily wind up with a $20 million salary, and an additional $50 million on the back end, with an A-list director and producer raking in tens of millions more.
The study looked at all films distributed in recent years by the six major studios and found that releases last years would yield a $1.9 billion loss after collecting revenue from an entire first cycle of sales to domestic theaters, foreign theaters, home video, pay television and every other source of income.
The effect of participation deals is huge, said Roger Smith, a former film executive who worked on the report, because "they can easily be paid out on money-losing pictures."
A NOTE TO READERS: The Skinny is available via e-mail. Click here and follow the directions to register to receive it in your inbox each weekday morning.
Latest Now in CBS Evening News
- Former Pa. DEP chief on contaminated water from gas drilling
- Evening News Online, 02.11.12
- Catholic votes and the Obama contraceptive quarrel
- Making the 1st ever US women's Olympic boxing team
- Ohio unemployment hits 3-year-low
- Who's really winning the 2012 GOP race?
- Mitt Romney wins Maine GOP caucuses
- In focus: The crisis in Syria
- Syrian forces launch new round of deadly attacks
- Some glimmer of hope in Ohio employment
- Boxing her way into history
- Evening News Online, 02.10.12
- Diplomat: U.S. military not the answer in Syria
- On the Road: Noah's Dream Catcher Network
- Salvaging the Costa Concordia
- Ambassador Ford on military help in Syria
- Rare moment of relief in Syria
Latest CBS News Headlines
on Facebook Most Discussed Stories
on CBS News
- Turkish premier discharged after second surgery
- Bryant hits game-winner, Lakers edge Raptors 94-92
- Boeing says it's frustrated with Dreamliner glitch
- Crown Princess departs after norovirus outbreak
on Facebook Most Discussed Stories
on CBS News






