by Cora Currier
ProPublica

President Barack Obama’s previous State of the Union speeches have pushed passage of such hallmark initiatives as the stimulus bill, health-care reform, the drawdown of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and repeal of the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on gays. But some big ideas from previous SOTU addresses have been abandoned.

The Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler has done a line-by-line analysis of some of the specific promises made in the 2010 [1] and 2011 [2] addresses, and how they’ve held up. Here we track the evolution of a few of Obama’s promises in the SOTU addresses — and why he’s struggled to keep them.

Energy and Infrastructure

Obama’s speeches have pushed investment in alternative energy technology and major green infrastructure projects as a linchpin of his overall economic recovery plan, but Republicans in Congress have stymied these ambitions. Obama’s 2009 speech claimed the stimulus bill would double the U.S. supply of renewable energy in three years and vowed to invest $15 billion in research and development for alternative energy and fuel-efficient cars. In 2010, U.S. energy from renewables averaged around 8 percent [3], unchanged from 2009 [4]; an updated figure is not yet available.

In his 2010 speech, Obama appeared to acknowledge Republican interests, mentioning “tough choices” on new nuclear power plants and offshore oil and gas exploration. But that year’s climate-change bill languished in the Senate [5] over disagreements on carbon caps and new efficiency standards.

Obama’s 2011 speech kept to the theme of technological advance under the rubric “Winning the Future.” He vowed that by 2035, 80 percent of the country’s electricity would be from clean energy and again called for increased funding for research and development. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce bluntly called the 2035 goal “impossible.” [6] Obama’s plan to give 80 percent of Americans access to high-speed rail within 25 years has made essentially no progress [7]. The one project that did begin — in California — since has stalled.

Obama’s energy goals have run up against a Congress hostile to costly projects in general and particularly suspicious of environmental regulation. The bankruptcy of solar-panel maker Solyndra Inc. [8], which had received a $535 million federal loan guarantee, furthered the case of critics who argued that spending on clean energy was wasteful.

Taxes

In every SOTU to date, Obama has called for a tax on the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans — in other words, an end to the George W. Bush tax cuts for those making more than $250,000 … Click to continue

by Kim Barker ProPublica

Sure, there’sthe GOP symbol, but the real elephant in the room at any of the Republicandebates since December has been the super PAC, the turbocharged politicalaction committee able to raise and spend unlimited amounts of money onpolitical ads — as long as that spending isn’t coordinated with aparticular campaign.

Mitt Romneysupporters used Restore OurFuture [1] to tank Newt Gingrich in Iowa, whileGingrich supporters relied on Winning OurFuture [2] for revenge in South Carolina.

Jon Huntsman’scampaign [3] would probably not have lasted as long asit did without Our Destiny. Now that Rick Perry is out of the race, throwinghis support to Gingrich, the real question is what will happen to the war chestof Make Us Great Again [4].

But those arejust the super PACs you’ve already heard about — the ones that candidatesgrouse about at debates, with Romney calling one Winning Our Future ad thatportrayed him as a corporate raider [5] “probably the biggest hoax since Bigfoot.”

As thecountdown continues to the South Carolina primary Saturday, it’s worth taking astep back and considering all the confusing names, and all the confusing moneythat might be spent in the coming months. It’s also worth considering how wegot to this new frontier, which even campaign operatives say is messy: Twoyears ago on Saturday, the Supreme Court, in its ruling on Citizens United vs.FEC, cracked open the door for superPACs. Two months later, a federal appeal court’s decision in Speechnow.orgvs. FEC threw it wide open. Now,registering as a super PAC is as simple as sending a letter and a form to theFEC.

So far, atleast 283 super PACs [6] have registered, although60 are run by one Florida man, Josue Larose, [7] and seem to serve no other purpose but piling up paperwork forthe FEC. And so far, super PACs have spent more than $29 million [8] on thepresidential race. (You can follow the money with our PAC Track application [9].) Althoughit’s not yet clear how that compares with overall spending by the candidatesthemselves, reports indicated that super PAC spending in Iowa outstripped thecandidates’ by 2-to-1, said Paul Ryan, a lawyer with the Campaign Legal Center [10].

More spending,likely the most ever in an election season, is on the horizon. And even thoughsome super PACs seem to be parodies (like comedian Stephen Colbert’s Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow, [11] which has probably done more to deliver “super PAC” into theAmerican lexicon than any politician), the groups insist they are real.

“There’s allkinds of games going on,” said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy … Click to continue

South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham (R) is currently South Carolina’s only senator to openly support The Stop Online Piracy Act.(SOPA)

Since 2008, Sen. Graham has received over $88,000 in campaign contributions from the entertainment and computing industries.

Sen. Graham’s contact information is below, as well as an in depth analysis by Propublica on which legislators support SOPA.

Thanks for supporting columbiacitypaper.com and internet freedom. -Paul Blake

Which Legislators Support SOPA and PIPA?

by Dan Nguyen, ProPublica

In the next few weeks, among the most talked-about legislation will be the “Stop Online Piracy Act ” commonly referred to as SOPA which, if passed, would give the Justice Department the authority to block access to foreign websites deemed to be dedicated to copyright infringement.

Both SOPA and its Senate version, PIPA (officially known as the PROTECT-IP Act), have widespread bipartisan support among lawmakers. But the proposed law has become a pitched battle between entertainment companies  who believe SOPA will curb the illegal distribution of movies and music and online media companies like Google and Facebook, who fear that the bills will be burdensome to implement and are tantamount to censorship.