WA meet Tami Green, Democratic Party

There’s a lot to be excited about this year –

Tami Green is running for State Senate in the 28th District

Click here and say:
I’m with Tami

We have a great opportunity to unseat one of the most conservative voices in the State Senate.

In his one year in office, State Senator Steve O’Ban has led efforts to allow businesses to deny services to gays and lesbians.

He’s worked to allow insurance companies to deny coverage for basic services, like mammograms, diabetes, and autism screenings.

Our state needs leaders who will move our state forward.

Rep. Tami Green has been representing the 28th District for 10 years. She has a strong record of accomplishment in the 28th District, and she is challenging Steve O’Ban for State Senate.

Will you sign our petition and show your support for Tami Green for State Senate?

Tami Green is a trusted nurse and legislative leader known for her integrity, courage, and willingness to bring people together.

In her 10 years in the Legislature, Tami has earned a strong reputation as an experienced leader who is focused on results.

She is a strong advocate for the values we share. She’s worked to strengthen the middle class, protect our environment, expand access to health care, and protect a woman’s right to choose.

With Republicans in power in the State Senate, we haven’t gotten the results that will help Washington’s working families.

This year, the Republican State Senate majority refused to compromise and failed to pass a Transportation or Capitol Budget. This has killed jobs and hurt our middle class.

Steve O’Ban was in step with the State Senate majority the entire way.

We need to elect leaders who are willing to come to the table, get to work, and do what’s best for our communities and working families.

We need Tami Green in the State Senate. Join us now and sign on as a supporter today.

In solidarity,

Jaxon Ravens
Washington State Democrats Chair

meet Bruce Braley, Democratic Party ~ Iowa


Lots of Democrats are facing tough challenges in this year’s elections — including my friend Bruce Braley in Iowa.

He’s running in a dead heat with his Tea Party-backed opponent and facing millions in outside spending in the state. But I know Bruce, and he’s not one to back down from a fight. No matter what the odds.

As a Congressman, he has been on the front lines of the battle to make college more affordable, he’s advocated for raising the federal minimum wage, and no one has been a stronger champion for our veterans than Bruce.

Bruce and his team need to hit a $65,000 goal before their FEC deadline in 7 days — and they could use our help. Can you give $5 or more today?

Bruce is on the front lines in the battle for control of the Senate. And the Tea Party and the Koch brothers are backing one of the most radical candidates of the election cycle — Bruce’s GOP opponent.

We cannot let the Tea Party take over Iowa. We need to back Bruce because he’ll help us keep control of the Senate.

Help me give Bruce and his grassroots team a leg up. Contribute $5 or more to make sure they reach their $65,000 before the FEC deadline.

Thank you.



Resource: his website

Latest News

Bosses vs birth control

This week on “The Good Fight” podcast: an inside account of the Supreme Court’s hearings on the case that could give corporate CEOs the right to deny birth control coverage to their employees.

Irin Carmon, the brilliant reporter for MSNBC.com, was there in the courtroom as the justices hashed out Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius—and then walked across the street to our studio in D.C. to tell us exactly how it went down.

Her story made me laugh, it made my blood boil a little bit … and it made me very excited about sharing this episode. If you’ve ever benefited from birth control yourself, you’ll definitely want to hear it: Click here to open the podcast on iTunes (and be sure to subscribe)!

Or you can listen on our website, via the Stitcher app for Android or iOS, or via RSS.


Guess how many justices were distinctly unenthusiastic about corporations getting to impose religious views on their employees’ birth control decisions?

Here’s a hint: There are three women on the Supreme Court.

You’ll hear what it’s like to sit inside the court during a historic case, and you’ll learn about what’s at stake. Plus, in this episode, you’ll hear updates on progressive fights from coast to coast in “The Good Fight’s Win Report.” If you’ve never listened to “The Good Fight,” this is a great place to start—this one’s short, sweet, and full of positive energy.

Click to hear the podcast on iTunes! And if you like it … subscribe!

Or check it out on the “The Good Fight” website.

If it seems to you like your CEO’s religious freedom shouldn’t affect what you can do with your own body, you’re not alone. In fact, one of the many great provisions in the Affordable Care Act is based on exactly that idea. It’s now under attack, like so many of the rights and freedoms that we’ve fought for over the years. And to fight back, the first step is knowing what’s happening. The second step? Spreading the word.

Thanks for all you do!

–Ben Wikler

P.S. New to podcasts? Welcome! A podcast is a prerecorded radio show, distributed through the Internet. You can listen on your computer on our website or through iTunes, or on your phone (through iTunes for iPhones, or Stitcher for Androids).

We launched “The Good Fight” in partnership with MoveOn a few months ago to tell the inside stories of fights that matter, and inspire people to get involved. If you like the program, please subscribe, post a review, and drop us an email at show@thegoodfight.fm.

Women in the US need the “Women’s Health Protection Act.”


join Daily Kos and the National Partnership for Women & Families to encourage your senators to co-sponsor the Women’s Health Protection Act. Click here to sign and send the petition.
Attacks on women’s health are happening all across the country.

  • Louisiana just tried to close ALL the state’s abortion clinics;
  • At least ten states require ultrasounds for women seeking abortion care, even when doctors say there’s no need;
  • The U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill last month that could end insurance coverage for abortion;
  • The Supreme Court will soon decide whether bosses can undermine the Affordable Care Act and endanger women’s health by denying their employees insurance coverage for birth control without co-pays;
  • And last year, states enacted the second-highest number of abortion restrictions… ever!

They are relentless, reckless and morally reprehensible.
The good news is that there’s a way to fight back: the Women’s Health Protection Act.
The Women’s Health Protection Act would allow women to make personal health care decisions unhindered by medically unnecessary restrictions designed to make it harder to access abortion care.
So please join Daily Kos and the National Partnership for Women & Families to encourage your Senators to become co-sponsors of the Women’s Health Protection Act. Please click here to sign and send the petition to your Senators.
Keep fighting, Rachel Colyer, Daily Kos

A Threat To Women And Workers


What you Need To Know About Today’s Supreme Court Rulings

The Supreme Court issued two important rulings this morning: one that makes it harder for women to exercise their right to choose, and a second that effectively eliminates a President’s ability to make recess appointments and could imperil unions down the road as a consequence. The remaining decisions this session are expected to come next Monday, including Hobby Lobby (can owners of a for-profit, secular corporation impose their religious beliefs on their employees?) and Harris v. Quinn (are public sector unions’ fair share fees that ensure all employees, regardless of whether they are members of the union, receive the collectively bargained-for benefits constitutional?)

The decisions today were both handed down unanimously by the High Court. Here’s more on what the implications are for each:

McCullen v. Coakley

The decision: The Court struck down a Massachusetts’ law establishing a 35-foot buffer zone around abortion providers, ruling in favor of anti-choice protesters who argued that being required to stay that far away from clinic entrances is a violation of their freedom of speech. The decision rolls back a proactive policy intended to safeguard women’s access to reproductive health care in the face of persistent harassment and intimidation from abortion opponents.

The argument: The Justices argue that the 35-foot zone in the Massachusetts law restricts “access to ‘public way[s]‘ and ‘sidewalk[s],’ places that have traditionally been open for speech ac­tivities.” Therefore, the opinion states, the law burdens “substantially more speech than necessary to achieve the Commonwealth’s asserted interests.” The justices do not categorically deny the right for states to set up buffer zones protecting abortion clinics, but do effectively remove the Massachusetts law and threaten other similar safety measures around the country.

The implications: The decision is a blow to women. Since 1993, eight clinic workers have been murdered. There have been 6,400 reported acts of violence against abortion providers since 1977. According to the National Abortion Federation (NAF), which closely tracks threats and violence against abortion providers across the country, buffer zones have had a measurable impact improving safety in the areas where they’re in place.

BOTTOM LINE: The Supreme Court itself has a buffer zone around it’s 252-by-98-foot plaza, preventing protesters from demonstrating too close to the entrance. Surely it can see the need for abortion clinics, the subject of frequent and sometimes violent intimidation from their opponents, to have a reasonable buffer zone as well.

National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning

The decision: The Court effectively eliminated the president’s power to make recess appointments in all but the most unusual circumstances. It limits the president’s constitutional duty to appoint leaders that keep our country working for all Americans, from making sure our elections are fair to protecting workers’ and consumer rights.

The argument: Prior to Noel Canning, a federal appeals court — the highest legal authority to weigh in on the question — confirmed that a president does indeed have the power to make recess appointments. Specifically, it ruled that sham sessions known as “pro forma” sessions held by the Senate every three days in order to defeat a president’s attempts to make these appointments were in fact not enough to stop him. Every single justice on the Supreme Court, however, disagreed with that ruling and voted against recess appointments today, although the Court split 5-4 on rationale. Five justices, overturning the appeals court, opined that these “pro forma” sessions were in fact enough to block a president from making recess appointments because “the Senate is in session when it says it is.” The four conservative justices went even further, with an opinion that could have retroactively invalidated thousands of recess appointments made by presidents past if it had garnered just one more vote.

The implications: The impact of this ruling goes beyond a legal technicality. President Obama took the risk of making recess appointments in the first place to fill a minimum number of seats on the National Labor Relations Board, a government agency with exclusive authority to enforce much of federal labor law. NLRB members serve five year terms, and unless at least three seats on the board are occupied, it is powerless to act. Therefore, the fullest impact of this decision will likely be felt in 2018, when the five year terms of the NLRB’s current slate of members expire. Even if the president at that time supports allowing federal labor law to function in 2018, he or she will be unable to keep the NLRB functioning if a majority of the Senate is determined to shut down federal labor protections.

More broadly, the decision underscores the importance of the Senate’s action last November to allow executive nominees to receive an up or down confirmation vote. Without last year’s change to the Senate rules, today’s decision would have empowered a small, but vocal minority, to use arcane procedure to block the government from being able to function properly.

BOTTOM LINE: In a technical ruling, the Supreme Court took away the president’s power to make recess appointments. While today’s court decision will have little immediate impact, its long-term effects remain unclear and could threaten the rights of workers across the country if the NLRB is dismantled. The House and Senate must find new ways to ensure that the politics of obstruction and shutdown do not limit the ability of our nation to function properly.

Stay tuned for more Court decisions on Monday. If you are in the Washington, D.C. area, RSVP to join a rally hosted by NARAL in front of the Supreme Court that morning.