Bibi imposes Putin-leaning NGO restrictions

In Israel today, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's carefully constructed Knesset majority passed a new law restricting NGOs that receive more than half their funding from foreign governments. Effectively, it establishes a second class for those NGOs, nearly all of which are devoted to expanding civil society and to connecting Israelis with likeminded democracy activists in Western Europe and the United States. That's right, U.S. Government-supported organizations are also included.

Not included? Dozens of right-wing, pro-settlement groups which receive funding from non-governmental foreign sources. In most cases, this unofficial funding is difficult to trace. And in many cases, those donating to the 'acceptable' NGOs are also major donors to political campaigns in the United States...invariably, Republican ones. And guess what? Netanyahu's Likud also receives significant support from those same individuals and enjoys close ties and coordination with the U.S. Republican Party; as Ambassador to the United States, Netanyahu confidant Ron Dermer has even spoken at the annual Republican strategy retreat convened by Sheldon Adelson. And Adelson is the most prominent of these donors, putting him in position to pull the strings of major politicians in both countries. And yet, no need for disclosure or special status, or Knesset speeches denouncing the right-wing groups as traitors.

Trump, Brexit, and that 'power to the people' myth

Across blogs and social media, and on the air, it's very common to find pundits and screen warriors praising populist rejections of globalization as important "wakeup calls" and breaths of fresh air. Such claims are either deliberately misleading or dangerously uninformed.

As with the late Meir Kahane and other demagogues, Nigel Farage and Donald Trump -- and the Tea Party -- can sometimes hit on some of the very real shortcomings of our society and in our global order, and the solutions they offer are both popular and counter-productive, and ones in which they themselves probably don't even believe.

We know for a fact that the Brexit and Trump campaigns have routinely been lying outright and inciting violence just to gain power.

Are we serious about power to the people, about ensuring everyone has a voice and everyone gets a fair shake? The "NRA" is disproportionately funded by the gun manufacturers and not by citizens seeking to exercise their Second Amendment rights. The defense industry plunks down millions in political contributions and hires the very generals and government officials who decide where to buy new systems. The pharmaceutical industry hires Committee chairs mere days after they push through favorable legislation.

As long as the rich can keep using their government-subsidized windfalls to drive more legislation and regulation in their favor, the 98 percent really stand no chance.

Why not start by fixing the bipartisan campaign finance reform championed by Senators McCain and Feingold? Why not assign Congressional redistricting to commissions of career professionals? Anyone who thinks Trump would ever act in the interests of the people is naïve enough to make the elites of both parties look prescient.

Let's watch how the British handle Brexit's increasingly real consequences, including the buyer's remorse in just the first few days since the vote. Now imagine what America and the world will feel like on November 9, or next January 20, should Trump actually manage to get elected.

On day school advocacy, follow the money.

I was intrigued to learn that my colleagues at the Jewish Council for Public Affairs are holding a panel discussion on vouchers, tax credits and other forms of government aid to non-public (i.e., private) schools. The panel is scheduled for this week's annual JCPA Plenum, where community activists from around the country gather to coordinate national and local approaches to pressing issues.

As was pointed out in the latest New York Jewish Week, this is a big deal for a national umbrella that's typically left-of-center when it comes to social policy and domestic politics. Part of JCPA's strength has been its affinity with labor unions and liberal church groups, which has come in handy over the years especially in protecting Israel from would-be boycotts. Some years back, JCPA ran afoul of some of the more monied interests in the Jewish community by opposing the Bush-era tax cuts.

Could this be a sea change? Government assistance to private schools -- even yeshivas -- is usually perceived by teachers' unions as undercutting their bottom line on the public school side. Many liberal Jews have lingering concerns over separation of church and state -- even for financing of secular aspects of Jewish day school education.

According to The Jewish Week, the three panelists for the session will be two academics -- including the leading historian of American Jewry -- and the head of a major teachers' union. It's a nice "get" to have a major skeptic of government funding, and two thoughtful scholars... but no sea change yet. Hopefully, sometime soon, JCPA will be in a position to give a platform to those in the community who are actively engaging in political advocacy for this cause, at the national, state and city levels;  a constitutional law expert; and possibly, one of the many community leaders who are also on board.

For now, it may be up to the Jewish Federations to lead the way, since that's where the donors are. Who better to appreciate what it costs to fund Jewish continuity?

Lobbyists don't kill the people -- people kill the people.

Shakespeare famously advised to first kill all the lawyers. These days, however, it's The Lobbyists who are the big villains. 

Lobbyists are the one class of Washington insider not welcome in this White House or among its appointees. And yet, the corporate titans and attorneys and bankers, the big campaign donors and fundraisers, all are invited to work in the Administration. In other words, those who hire lobbyists to actualize their own influencing of how Washington works are considered clean. This is especially ironic, since only bonafide lobbyists are required by law to report every government contact they have, and on what matters were covered. Anyone else can influence policymakers all day and night, without having to disclose it, and then jump in when the time is right. This includes the people behind multi-million-dollar "527" committees that raise money in secret and run media campaigns to get the Presidents elected.

It's not just Democrats who find the rhetoric against "lobbyists" to be a convenient bogeyman. This past weekend, Republican Presidential frontrunner Mitt Romney was boasting that his own campaign is not being run by any Washington lobbyists -- in contrast to one or two rival campaigns. When a reporter challenged him on this, Romney argued with him at length about whether one particular high-powered lobbyist is actually running his campaign or merely serving as an occasional, unpaid "adviser". 

But what difference would it make? Lobbyists are the equivalent of drivers, hired by the real monied classes to deliver messages, and to recite convincing arguments to policymakers who already know that their clients have donated major cash to their political bosses. Meanwhile, nearly every campaign is flooded with wealthy business executives and "consultants", financiers, corporate lawyers, and real estate developers -- and so is every Presidential administration.