Search
Archives

You are currently browsing the archives for the Special Interests category.

Categories

Archive for the ‘Special Interests’ Category

KARE11’s Boyd Huppert traveled to Somerset, WI, to see if Justin Rivard’s invention would save lives. While DC-based politicians and special interests retreat to their predictable positions, Justin applied a little American ingenuity to the school shooting crisis situation to see if he could make a difference. What he created in shop class might impact more students’ lives than anything that the politicians and special interests come up with.

The article opens by saying “The flag at Somerset High School flies at half-staff in honor lives lost in Florida. Inside, Somerset senior Justin Rivard was inspired in his shop class to try to save lives here. “I call this the JustinKase,” Justin says of his invention. “You don’t want to use it, but just in case you need it, it’ll be there. Made of steel plates and connecting rods, Justin’s device slips beneath a classroom door and latches to the door’s jam. With his device in place, Justin has yet to find a person who can push a classroom door open, including linemen from his high school football team. “You can lock a door with a lock, it can get shot out,” Justin says. “You can lock a door with this, it can’t get shot out. You can’t get around it.”

It’s time for politicians and special interests to step aside. It looks like Justin Rivard just built a better mouse trap:

What’s not to love about this invention? It doesn’t violate a person’s civil rights. Politicians can sit on the sideline and applaud old-fashioned ingenuity. Gangbangers can’t get past it.

When a shooter is stalking the hallways, the police are 5 minutes away. Justin’s device helps protects students and teachers until the first responders and law enforcement get there. Isn’t it time the politicians and the special interests got out of the American people’s way so they can fix this problem?

When a shop teacher challenged his students to build a device which could increase school safety, Justin Rivard rose to the occasion. Only 15 at the time, he researched current products and then sought to learn their strengths and weaknesses. After months of refinements, JustinKase was engineered, built, refined, and is now helping protect hundreds of students with orders meaning thousands of students in Wisconsin & Minnesota will soon be made safer due to his innovation.

Justin Rivard should get an award from the White House, Congress and others. Everyone knows there’s a problem with school safety. Justin Rivard didn’t complain that politicians weren’t protecting him or his classmates. He just started innovating until he fixed a big problem. I won’t pretend that this is the only thing that’s needed to stop mass shootings. It isn’t. The JustinKase will protect students until police arrive, though, which is a huge deal.

Technorati: , , , , , , , ,

Apparently, the Met Council doesn’t think it needs to reach agreement with the BNSF Railroad company before completing the Bottineau LRT. Apparently, it’s too lazy to do the due diligence that Kim Crocket put into this article.

In the article, Ms. Crockett wrote about a letter from BNSF. The letter, written by BNSF vice president and senior general counsel Richard E. Weicher in a letter dated Jan. 9, 2018, said “BNSF is not prepared to proceed with any discussion of passenger rail in this corridor at this time. As we explained in discussions some time ago, we do not believe the Blue Line light rail project would be consistent with our passenger principles or protect the long-term viability of freight service along the Monticello Subdivision.”

What part of that communication isn’t clear? A supposedly intelligent person should be able to understand that as a rejection of the Met Council’s proposal. Later in the article, Crockett asked some questions:

Why didn’t the Met Council get these “details” handled before committing to and spending taxpayer money on these projects? If BNSF does not budge, the Met Council would have to find a new rail route for the Bottineau line and start its application with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) all over. The application is currently pending in the engineering stage but far from approved. Since finding a new route is unlikely, why not drop LRT in favor of a top-flight bus system on existing and improved roads?

The answer to those questions is straightforward. The Met Council thinks that they dictate terms to the people and to whoever they have to deal with. They’re finding out that their approach is deeply flawed.

At this point, it isn’t a stretch to think that the Met Council is out of touch with the people it’s supposed to serve. That’s the LFR definition of elitism.

The DFL hasn’t hidden their support for public employee unions like AFSCME, SEIU and MAPE. That means they’ve supported the things described in this article. What’s outlined in this article, though, seems more like highway robbery than representation.

For instance, “Labor unions in a handful of states have been able to take a portion of [Medicaid payments paid to PCAs] by organizing all the personal caregivers as one bargaining unit. Lawmakers in those states have allowed the practice by implementing policies that classify the caregivers as public employees – but only for the purpose of collective bargaining.”

The previous paragraph describes who these PCAs are, saying “Medicaid funds can be provided to personal caregivers who care for an elderly and disabled individual. The caregiver in most cases is related to their client. It’s a system that allows for personalized treatment and oftentimes it allows families to care for loved ones. But it’s also a system that has enriched unions.”

The unions have enriched themselves to the tune of “$200 million annually from Medicaid funds through personal caregivers.” These aren’t public employees. They’re relatives. The union collects their dues but the relatives don’t get the benefits that the unions bargain for. What part of that sounds justifiable?

Here’s what happened in Minnesota:

The union practice exists in states like California, Washington, Oregon, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Vermont, and Connecticut Minnesota lawmakers, for instance, allowed a state union to organize Personal Care Providers (PCA) as a single bargaining unit by passing a law dictating they are state employees simply because they collect Medicaid funds. Democratic Gov. Mark Dayton tried to do the same in 2011 through an executive order, but it failed in the courts.

The same bill that allowed unionization of in-home child care providers also authorized the unionization of family-based PCAs. Here’s part of the committee debate on that legislation:

Rep. Mahoney didn’t tell the truth. The union dues get taken out of money paid by government to in-home child care providers and PCAs. With PCAs, that money comes from Medicaid. These aren’t wages. They’re support payments paid to help families provide care for family members who otherwise might be housed in nursing homes or mental institutions. The state is actually saving money as a direct result of this program.

The family member is subsidized to care for family members because they’ve given up their jobs. That’s essentially a reimbursement paid in exchange for helping the state save money. That isn’t a wage.

“Medicaid will pay for homecare services for the elderly and disabled,” Nelsen told InsideSources. “The SEIU and AFSCME, back in the late 90s, when union membership was generally declining saw these workers, and this pool of Medicaid dollars, as a potential organizing opportunity.”

The U.S. Supreme Court addressed the issue to an extent during the 2014 case, Harris v. Quinn. The justices ruled that Illinois home care providers couldn’t be forced to pay dues because they weren’t technically state employees. Nelsen argues that unions and state leaders have found ways around those restrictions. “The states and unions have worked hand and glove to design a series of workarounds to the Harris v. Quinn decision, and to keep people paying dues whether they want to or not,” Nelsen said. “There are literally hundreds and thousands of these care providers around the country paying union dues to the SEIU and AFSCME against their will.”

In Minnesota, PCAs have petitioned the government to hold a decertification vote. If it’s held, the largest unionized bargaining unit will be decertified. The vote won’t be close.

When the unionization vote happened for in-home child care providers, it was rejected by a 1,014-392 margin. There’s no reason to think this vote won’t be similarly lopsided.

Salena Zito’s column asks a brilliant question. First, she made the observation that “Few focused on who wasn’t there and why they weren’t. Once again, the pundits were missing the little nuances of how much American politics really has changed, and what that may mean for future results. Once again, the pundits were missing the little nuances of how much American politics really has changed, and what that may mean for future results. Importantly, three people in states that went heavily for Trump in 2016, Indiana’s Sen. Joe Donnelly, West Virginia’s Sen. Joe Manchin, and Missouri’s Sen. Claire McCaskill, were all absent. Two less vulnerable incumbent Democrats Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Pennsylvania’s Sen. Bob Casey were also not there.”

Then she made a statement that said “They have made the bet to pick their donors in California and New York over their voters back home.” Democrats don’t have a message but they’re well-financed. Republicans stumbled early but they’ve put together a solid list of accomplishments. Meanwhile, the RNC has been kicking the DNC’s behind in fundraising ever since Ronna McDaniel took over.

None of these so-called ‘moderate’ Democrats voted for the Trump/GOP tax cuts. Then they weren’t anywhere to be found to negotiate a DACA fix. That begs this question: what identifies them as moderates?

If anyone of those senators get caught near Trump, all of those donors would ditch them in a minute. They’re basically asking McCaskill and Manchin and Donnelly to do an act of levitation. Win without doing the things your voters would like you to do.

The question is will the voters hold them accountable? They’re gambling they won’t be held accountable. They’re gambling that Trump is so polarizing that there are no Trump voters available to them on a positive scale. They’re thinking they’re going to have to obliterate their opponent, tear their opponent to shreds.

Yet think about the margins here. Trump won Indiana and Missouri by more than 18 points. He won North Dakota and West Virginia by 30-some points. He won Ohio by 9 points. It’s not like you only need a few Trump voters to stay home, they would need a lot of them, like a third of them, to stay home. And that is just not going to happen.

A quick look around the room speaks volumes:

Heitkamp, Manchin, Donnelly, McCaskill and Brown better hope that voters didn’t notice that they didn’t support any part of President Trump’s agenda. If they notice, that fivesome is history.

Michigan’s Sen. Debbie Stabenow’s statement about the tax cuts in Michigan is the perfect example of that risk. When tax reform passed late last year, Stabenow issued a statement that read:

“I’ve said from the beginning that we need tax reform that makes the tax system simpler, puts more money in your pocket, closes tax loopholes that send jobs overseas and supports small businesses and farms across Michigan. Unfortunately that isn’t at all what this republican bill does.”

Ten days later, Fiat Chrysler announced that they would invest more than $1 billion to modernize the company’s Warren Truck Plant in Detroit, adding 2,500 jobs and moving production of its Ram trucks from Mexico. They also announced they would be giving $2,000 bonuses to their hourly U.S. workers. The company credited the moves to the new tax law.

The Democrats have been on the wrong side of the tax cuts from the start. As these bonuses, pay raises and other positive announcements get factored in, how will Democrats defend their unanimous vote against the Trump/GOP tax cuts?

The pundits talk about how the President’s party usually does poorly in a new president’s first term. I certainly cant dispute that that’s the history. What’s disputable, though, is that that pattern will apply this time. I see information that indicates it might not.

Cindy Whitehair’s LTE is a great example of how special interests have shown the difference in perspectives between how locals see the environment and how special interests see things.

This point is especially driven home when Ms. Whitehair said “There are indeed uses that are allowed in a national forest (for example) that are not allowed in a national monument. One such use is the local tribes’ ability to practice their religion freely. Many of the lands that were swallowed up by President Obama’s Bears Ears designation are sacred tribal lands that are used by local Navajo tribes for religious ceremonies and their access to those sacred lands was cut off when the lands went from a national forest designation to a national monument designation.”

I’m confident that DC special interest organizations know this but haven’t said anything about that the average person who isn’t a local isn’t aware of. It’s a big difference. There’s a policy difference that comes from this, too. Because locals know about these nuances, they’re best equipped to influence how the land is used. There’s no question that the Sierra Club and other national special interest groups were thrilled with President Obama’s unilateral declaration. Ryan Zinke, President Trump’s Interior Secretary, though, took time to travel to Utah to actually talk with residents.

The Trump administration’s decision was made by the federal government but it was made based on the input of locals. The Obama administration’s decision wasn’t made with input of locals. The quality of the decisions is enormously different. Secretary Zinke’s op-ed explains why they did what they did:

Bears Ears National Monument will be modified to create two units: the Indian Creek Unit and the Shash Jáa units. Between these two units, which will now span over 200,000 acres of federal land, the proclamation continues to protect important objects, from the Bears Ears buttes and headwaters, Moon House Ruin, and Doll House Ruin, to unique paleontological resources and areas sacred to Native Americans. The Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument will be modified to consist of three smaller units known as the Grand Staircase, Kaiparowits, and Escalante Canyons units.

Why wouldn’t we want locals having input into the use of lands as beautiful as this?

Ms. Whitehair answers that question in this paragraph:

While that is not all bad, these special interest groups were not acting from a stewardship standpoint (as the local Navajo actually are).These special interest groups did not want to listen to the local tribes who were opposed to the designation or to the residents who were concerned about the impact to an already fragile local economy.(Utah’s main economic generator is tourism and if you can’t get into these wild areas, why go to those counties?)

Congress should modify the Antiquities Act by requiring greater local public input into these decisions and by requiring an individual act of Congress to create a national monument over a certain size. That way, individuals have a greater input and special interests from 1,000 miles away have little input.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

It’s indisputable that past presidents have used the Antiquities Act to create national monuments. The worst presidents in terms of misusing the Antiquities Act were President Obama, President Clinton and President George W. Bush. It’s fair to say that each of those presidents misused the Antiquities Act to sidestep the original intent of the law. Rob Bishop’s op-ed highlights how past presidents have essentially ignored the law in creating national monuments.

In Bishop’s op-ed, he wrote “A few statistics can illustrate the scope of the overreach. Between 1906 and 1943, the law functioned basically as designed. Presidents respected the intent of the act. Most monuments were smaller and had clear boundaries with real antiquities inside them. By contrast, designations under the act last year averaged 739,645 acres, or more than 47 times the size of those created 110 years ago. President Teddy Roosevelt was the first president to use the act. He used it 18 times for a combined total of 1.5 million acres. President Barack Obama used it 37 times to designate 553.6 million acres of land and water.”

Chairman Bishop didn’t just complain about the problem. He’s proposed a solution:

Last week, I introduced legislation to correct these failures and permanently address my colleagues’ concerns. The National Monument Creation and Protection Act would, like the writers of the Antiquities Act intended, allow the president to unilaterally designate land up to 640 acres. Monument designations between 640 and 10,000 acres would be subject to review under the National Environmental Policy Act. Designations between 10,000 and 85,000 acres would be required to obtain the approval of all county commissioners, state legislatures, and governors in the affected area. The bill also standardizes and limits the president’s power to reshape monuments.

Chairman Bishop’s legislation is well-written and desperately needed. Unfortunately, there’s no chance it will pass. That’s because it will get stopped by the Democrats’ filibuster in the Senate. Their environmental activist friends will insist that the bill be stopped.

That’s because these environmental activists want big, unaccountable government. These activists are almost always Democrats, though a handful are Republicans. These activists have proven time and again that they prefer it when government tramples over people in favor of the ‘greater good’ of saving Mother Earth. These activists don’t like the rule of law. Here’s proof:

In 1996, prior to the designation of the Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument in Utah, Clinton’s then-Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality Katie McGinty stated the following, “I’m increasingly of the view that we should just drop these utah [sic] ideas. we [sic] do not really know how the enviros will react and I do think there is a danger of ‘abuse’ of the withdraw/antiquities authorities especially because these lands are not really endangered.”

If McGinty’s name sounds familiar, it’s possibly because she ran for Senate in 2016 against Republican Pat Toomey. Thankfully, Sen. Toomey defeated her. But I digress.

It’s disheartening to see Democrats trample over the law. It’s especially disheartening that Democrats do that for a few extra campaign contributions. That’s how cold-hearted Democrats are. This is what’s most disgusting:

The monument was designated in the waning months of Clinton’s re-election campaign. Its total acreage: 1.7 million — three times the size of Rhode Island. No town halls, no public meetings, and no public comment sessions were ever held in Utah. No input was solicited from local stakeholders or land managers in the area. Utah’s governor, congressional delegation, public officials, and residents from across the state all expressed outrage at the lack of prior consultation or warning of the designation. In what feels like symbolism, the proclamation wasn’t even signed in Utah; it was signed in Arizona.

That’s the opposite of transparency. That’s proof that Democrats don’t like accountable government.

This week, I got an email from a loyal reader of LFR who is upset that the city council doesn’t allocate more time to listening to citizens. Imagine my surprise to hear that the City Council allocates a maximum of 10 minutes each meeting to a segment known as Open Forum. According to the City Council website, Open Forum is a time when “St. Cloud residents may address the council with questions/concerns/comments (regarding an item NOT on the agenda).” According to the City Council’s own website, “Speakers will be limited to the first five St. Cloud residents who sign up.” Further, individuals will be limited to speaking twice a year. Additionally, each individual is limited to speaking a maximum of 2 minutes.

How is that giving people the time to properly address important issues? How can a city council member get enough information to formulate an informed opinion on a topic?

It isn’t surprising that this city council is considering raising the minimum age to purchase cigarettes in St. Cloud to 21. This isn’t a priority with anything but a handful of people. Nonetheless, a significant portion of time will be devoted to that subject during the first full meeting in November. How did that item get scheduled for that night’s agenda? It definitely wasn’t because of a significant outpouring of concern from citizens. Most likely, it’s on the schedule because some special interest hacks told a handful of city council members it was important.

To be fair, there are a couple of city council members that are attentive listeners. Jeff Johnson and George Hontos will listen. There might be others but I can’t confirm that. When Tip O’Neill famously said that “all politics is local”, he certainly wasn’t talking about this city council.

Seriously, this city council listens more to the special interests than to the citizenry. At this point, citizens only have a chance to react. They don’t really have a chance to influence the council’s agenda in any meaningful way.

That can’t continue!

Whether they’ll admit it or not, these people work for us, not the special interests that typically take up the majority of the city council’s time.

To: Speaker Daudt, Sen. Gazelka
From: Gary Gross, Chief troublemaker, Uppity Peasants Brigade
Subject: Gov. Dayton standoff

Gentlemen, I’m proud of you for standing your ground in this fight against Gov. Dayton. Don’t renegotiate the tax bill that Gov. Dayton signed. Instead, tell Gov. Dayton that you’ll broadcast the fact that Gov. Dayton and the DFL didn’t put a high priority on serving their constituents.

Instead of renegotiating the tax bill, the House should immediately submit a clean funding bill that funds the legislature for the rest of the biennium. Pass it ASAP, then send it to the Senate. If Gov. Dayton vetoes the clean funding bill, I’d schedule an override vote immediately. If the House or Senate votes to sustain Gov. Dayton’s veto, tell each outstate DFL legislator that voted to sustain Gov. Dayton’s veto that they’d better prepare for the onslaught of advertising that’s heading their direction. Tell these DFL legislators that their constituents will hear that they voted against the GOP tax relief package for farmers, small businesses and the middle class. Tell these DFL legislators that their constituents will hear about their votes to keep the legislature shut down, too.

Let them know that voting with Gov. Dayton will come at a political price.

Gentlemen, tell the DFL that listening to their special interest allies will cost them bigtime this election cycle. Gov. Dayton told Tom Hauser that he wants to drag you back to the negotiating table because he’s worried that the government might run a deficit. Like you, I’ve paid attention to Gov. Dayton’s message from the start of his administration until his lame-duck year. Not once has Gov. Dayton or his DFL allies said a thing about being worried that families have enough to put a roof over their head, save for retirement or for their children’s college education or help meet their bills.

Thanks for standing tall. Thanks for not letting Gov. Dayton’s special interest allies bully you. Keep up the good work.

This afternoon, I got an email saying that the MNPCA has submitted over 10,000 cards to Gov. Dayton “demanding a union decertification election.”

SEIU Healthcare Minnesota should be getting nervous because SEIU Healthcare Minnesota “established the union in a mail-in ballot, low voter turnout election with just 13 percent of the estimated 27,000 home-based PCAs in Minnesota.” Kim Crockett, the Vice President at Center of the American Experiment, said that the 10,000 cards “total three times more than the 3,543 PCAs who voted for unionization in 2014.”

In other words, the chances of SEIU Healthcare Minnesota getting decertified is significant to high. A little history is in order. On the last weekend of the 2013 session, the DFL passed a bill authorizing a unionization vote for in-home child care providers and PCAs. The DFL passed the bill despite the fact that in-home child care providers lobbied all weekend against the bill. They simply didn’t listen. The DFL had gotten their marching orders from AFSCME and SEIU. There was no way they were going to disobey their masters.

In March, 2016, the in-home child care providers rejected unionization by a vote of 1,014-392. That’s a defeat of 72% rejecting unionization, with only 28% of in-home child care providers voting for unionization. But I digress.

Apparently, SEIU Healthcare Minnesota got the message that a fair election wouldn’t turn out well so they allegedly tried winning the certification election with low voter turnout. Now that the “home-based PCAs in Minnesota” know the details of what they were signing, expect this decertification vote to turn out differently. These people don’t like the types of people you should mess with:

Though I won’t predict anything, I’ll state that it wouldn’t surprise me if this decertification vote is lopsided, too.

Nothing verifies the fact that Sen. Franken is owned by leftist special interest organizations than a letter from 27 special interest organizations praising him for blocking David Stras’s confirmation.

Until recently, PFAW, aka People for the American Way, has been significantly to the left of the Democratic Party for years. When Ralph Neas was PFAW’s president, he was known for hyperbole. For instance, Neas once said “that if the views of Scalia and Thomas were to become the majority on the Court, ‘the result on issue after issue would be a radical, reactionary shift in U.S. law.’ Specifically: ‘religious liberty would suffer’; ‘church-state separation’ would be compromised; ‘the right to strike and bargain collectively’ would be weakened; ‘laws that protect workers from sexual harassment’ would be overturned; ‘the federal government would be barred from stopping the destruction of endangered species on private land’; ‘local governments’ power to protect the environment would be restricted’; and ‘sensible gun-control legislation would be struck down.'”

Since then, PFAW has moved left. It’s worth noting that PFAW is one of the 27 organizations that is praising Sen. Franken. Here’s the opening paragraph of the special interests’ letter to Sen. Franken:

We, the undersigned civil rights, labor, and other public interest organizations, write to thank you for your commitment to preserving a fair-minded and independent judiciary. Now more than ever, our courts must serve as a check on the president, whose executive actions repeatedly disregard the law and the Constitution, and your recent, principled decision not to return your blue slip on the nomination of Justice David Stras to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit helps ensure that our courts can fulfill this essential role.

When they write that the “courts must serve as a check on the president”, they’re admitting that they’re worried about President Trump. Remember that the left sees Scalia as evil. He actually ruled according to the Constitution. They want a jurist who will implement their policy preferences without questioning.

As former Vice President Mondale has pointed out, in supporting your decision on Justice Stras, the blue slip tradition also has been vital in helping to promote bipartisan cooperation and prevent “overt partisanship” in judicial nominations. Indeed, it is a manifestation of the Constitution’s Advice and Consent process. The blue slip practice is one of the constitutional checks and balances that helps maintain equilibrium among the branches of government. When the Senate majority places partisan loyalty to the president over the Senate’s institutional interests in independently carrying out its constitutional responsibilities, the blue slip serves as a vital corrective.

Under normal circumstances, “the blue slip tradition” is vital to building bipartisan consensus. Democrats have shown, though, that they aren’t even slightly interested in building bipartisan consensus. This website sums up what Sen. Franken and the Democrats are about:

Our mission is to fuel a progressive grassroots network of local groups to resist the Trump agenda.

Thus far this session, Democrats have used every tool to prevent the installation of President Trump’s government. They’ve repeatedly used arcane rules to delay committee hearings on cabinet appointees. They’ve voted in lockstep with Sen. Schumer virtually all the time. Sen. Franken isn’t representing Minnesota. He’s representing Sen. Schumer and the Democrats’ special interest allies.

This is laughable:

You could have followed the examples of Senators McConnell, Sessions, Shelby, and Coats and not reviewed Justice Stras’ record, withholding your blue slip based solely on the lack of meaningful consultation. However, you went beyond process to evaluate extensively his record. Those of us who wrote the Committee on August 31 very much agree with your conclusion that rather than demonstrating fairness and open-mindedness, his record demonstrates that he would reliably rule in favor of powerful corporate interests over working people, and that he would place a high bar before plaintiffs seeking justice at work, at school, and at the ballot box.

That could’ve been written by Ralph Neas. It sounds that paranoid. What’s obvious is that Sen. Franken won’t vote for anyone who doesn’t get PFAW’s stamp of approval.

Sen. Franken isn’t a patriot. Apparently, Sen. Franken doesn’t know that it’s unconstitutional to demand that a nominee pass a ‘religious test’. Watch this video, then tell me that this is a patriot, an honorable man:

Frankly, I’d love to see Sen. Franken, Sen. Feinstein and Sen. Durbin get censured for questioning a judicial nominee’s religious beliefs. It’s immoral. More importantly, it’s unconstitutional. Finally, here’s the list of special interest organizations that signed the letter to Sen. Franken:

African American Ministers In Action
Alliance for Justice
American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Unions
American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees
Center for American Progress
Committee for a Fair Judiciary
Courage Campaign
Earthjustice
Every Voice
Family Equality Council
Human Rights Campaign
Lambda Legal
Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights
MALDEF
MoveOn.org
NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc.
NARAL Pro-Choice America
National Black Justice Coalition
National Center for Lesbian Rights
National Council of Jewish Women
National Education Association
National Employment Lawyers Association
National Women’s Law Center
People For the American Way
Planned Parenthood Federation of America
Service Employees International Union (SEIU)
Voting Rights Forward

These are the organizations that Sen. Franken represents. He doesn’t represent all Minnesotans. He’s a disgrace.