Top Stories

The Michigan Messenger going forward

By Staff Report | 11.16.11

I am writing today to announce the closure of the Michigan Messenger. After four years of operation in Michigan, the board of the American Independent News Network, has decided to shift publication of its news into a single site, The American Independent at Americanindependent.com. This is part of a shift in strategy, towards new forms [...]

Colorado-based abstinence program provided false and misleading information to Michigan students

HIV-AIDS-small
By Todd A. Heywood | 11.16.11

An abstinence-only presentation provided to numerous school districts in Calhoun and Eaton Counties in October of this year provided false and misleading information to students about HIV, experts allege.

Class action lawsuit filed against MERS over unpaid taxes

foreclosure
By Todd A. Heywood | 11.15.11

Two county registers of deeds filed a class action lawsuit Monday on behalf of Michigan’s 83 counties alleging that the Mortgage Electronic Registration Services owes millions of dollars in property title transfer taxes.

Schuette fights important mercury regulations

epa_logo
By Eartha Jane Melzer | 11.14.11

Despite evidence of the impact of mercury on children and public health, Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette last month joined with 24 other state attorneys general in filing a lawsuit to scuttle new EPA regulations that would reduce mercury emissions from power plants.

Former Congressman Schwarz leads stem cell research discussion panel

By Kevin Shopshire | 11.23.07 | 11:53 am

The nonprofit, nonpartisan Michigan Citizens for Stem Cell Research and Cures (MCSCRC) is presenting a panel discussion on stem cell research featuring former Republican Congressman Dr. Joe Schwarz.

The discussion is sponsored by the Livingston County Democratic Party and will be held at 7 p.m. Tuesday Nov. 27 at the party’s headquarters, 10321 East Grand River Ave. Suite 600, Fonda Place in Brighton. In addition to Schwarz, Marcia Baum, the executive director of (MCSCRC), will be on the panel. The public, regardless of party affiliation, is encouraged to attend.

The MCSCRC is an educational coalition with the goal of educating citizens about stem cell research, and it does not endorse, propose or oppose legislation. Embryonic stem cell research has the potential to cure serious diseases like Parkinson’s disease, diabetes, spinal-cord injuries and Alzheimer’s, but conservative, pro-life groups have blocked embryonic stem cell research in Michigan.

Schwarz is a medical doctor from Battle Creek who was first elected to Congress in 2004 to represent the 7th Congressional District as a moderate Republican. He was targeted in 2006 by conservative groups like the conservative Club for Growth. He was unseated in the primary by conservative Tim Walberg, R-Tipton.

Comments

  • chetly

    Interestingly though, MCSCRC takes money from ballot questions It’s interesting that you call this organization “non-profit, non-partisan … does not endorse, propose or oppose legislation.”

    I’ve reported it on it here, almost three weeks ago:
    http://www.outsidela…

    In that campaign finance expose, I note how Marcia Baum accepted $10K in cash for consulting from the similarly named 2006 ballot question committee (which has reformed for 2008 with the same Dykema Gossett Treasurer), and the non-profit itself was gifted the remaining $7500.  Granting ballot question money to a charity is legal – granting it in cash for “consulting” to the head the same charity for an amount almost half of the total the committee raised raises a ton of questions both about the depth of the relationship and what work was actually performed given the committee’s short existence in 2004.

    So, yes, it is a “non-profit” because anyone can go get IRS c3 status.  It may not be “partisan” because most issue committees have cross-partisan interest – and I have considerable sympathy towards the stem-cell cause (but not necessarily means, particularly given the promise of more ethical adult stem-cell research) myself having had relatives pass from Alzheimer’s.

    But to suggest that it doesn’t endorse, propose or oppose legislation – given the intermingling of its leaders and money with the ballot question is questionable.  I grant that you may not have been aware of these issues, which is why I note it here.  The preponderance of evidence is that this non-profit’s “educational” mission is tenuous at best – it exists to influence the political debate (otherwise, I’d expect the group to bring in speakers from both sides of the issue, etc.). There’s nothing wrong with that – let’s just admit it.

  • Kevin Shopshire

    Thanks for the comments I don’t see the significance of two inactive PACs, but then again I’m not a lawyer like you. You can do two things; file a complaint if there is something illegal. I know you know how to do that, or you can show up at the forum and listen to the discussion. In the future, if you want to promote one of your blogs I might be able to get you in touch with someone who might be able to sell you an ad.

  • chetly

    Interestingly though, MCSCRC takes money from ballot questions It's interesting that you call this organization “non-profit, non-partisan … does not endorse, propose or oppose legislation.”

    I've reported it on it here, almost three weeks ago:

    http://www.outsidela…

    In that campaign finance expose, I note how Marcia Baum accepted $10K in cash for consulting from the similarly named 2006 ballot question committee (which has reformed for 2008 with the same Dykema Gossett Treasurer), and the non-profit itself was gifted the remaining $7500.  Granting ballot question money to a charity is legal – granting it in cash for “consulting” to the head the same charity for an amount almost half of the total the committee raised raises a ton of questions both about the depth of the relationship and what work was actually performed given the committee's short existence in 2004.

    So, yes, it is a “non-profit” because anyone can go get IRS c3 status.  It may not be “partisan” because most issue committees have cross-partisan interest – and I have considerable sympathy towards the stem-cell cause (but not necessarily means, particularly given the promise of more ethical adult stem-cell research) myself having had relatives pass from Alzheimer's.

    But to suggest that it doesn't endorse, propose or oppose legislation – given the intermingling of its leaders and money with the ballot question is questionable.  I grant that you may not have been aware of these issues, which is why I note it here.  The preponderance of evidence is that this non-profit's “educational” mission is tenuous at best – it exists to influence the political debate (otherwise, I'd expect the group to bring in speakers from both sides of the issue, etc.). There's nothing wrong with that – let's just admit it.

  • Kevin Shopshire

    Thanks for the comments I don't see the significance of two inactive PACs, but then again I'm not a lawyer like you. You can do two things; file a complaint if there is something illegal. I know you know how to do that, or you can show up at the forum and listen to the discussion. In the future, if you want to promote one of your blogs I might be able to get you in touch with someone who might be able to sell you an ad.

  • chetly

    Not a lawyer I'm not a lawyer, and the two entities are ballot question committee, not PACs (much different rules).  One is active, one is inactive.  The active is a reincarnation of the inactive.  The significance of Marcia Baum, whom you mention in this article, taking $10 in consulting fees from the ballot committee in 2006, and also simultaneously running a non-profit of a similar mission, should almost be obvious.  It raises questions of self-dealing, and the political purpose of her non-profit.  Nothing illegal – just doesn't look good, even to, or especially to, one's own donors.

    I'm not “promoting my blog” here, except in a very indirect way.  That link is highly relevant to your story here.  Is it against MM policy to post relevant links in comments?

    PS – I did file a campaign complaint on a separate PAC issue I reported the same day dealing with Jon Stryker.  Separate issue though. 

  • LoRayne Apo-Joynt

    And of course you are clearly disclosing your position …as a consultant to conservatives who might have a vested interest in your critique of Baum.

  • chetly

    Not a lawyer I’m not a lawyer, and the two entities are ballot question committee, not PACs (much different rules).  One is active, one is inactive.  The active is a reincarnation of the inactive.  The significance of Marcia Baum, whom you mention in this article, taking $10 in consulting fees from the ballot committee in 2006, and also simultaneously running a non-profit of a similar mission, should almost be obvious.  It raises questions of self-dealing, and the political purpose of her non-profit.  Nothing illegal – just doesn’t look good, even to, or especially to, one’s own donors.

    I’m not “promoting my blog” here, except in a very indirect way.  That link is highly relevant to your story here.  Is it against MM policy to post relevant links in comments?

    PS – I did file a campaign complaint on a separate PAC issue I reported the same day dealing with Jon Stryker.  Separate issue though. 

  • LoRayne Apo-Joynt

    And of course you are clearly disclosing your position …as a consultant to conservatives who might have a vested interest in your critique of Baum.

Categories & Tags: | | | |