On Obama Health Care Law, Republican Governors, Legislators Have Commitment Issues

WASHINGTON -- In the wake of the Supreme Court's decision to uphold the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate, the battle over health care has shifted, in large part, to governors' offices and statehouses across the country.

States now have responsibility to create health insurance exchanges and decide whether or not to expand Medicaid coverage. The extent to which they choose to do so could determine how people perceive the law and the actual success of reform.

In the immediate aftermath of the ruling, the response has been mixed. State level reactions to the Supreme Court's decision have ranged from active compliance to open defiance. As HuffPost's Amanda Terkel reported, several high profile Republican governors including Louisiana's Bobby Jindal and Wisconsin's Scott Walker have taken hardline stances against implementing the ACA in its entirety.

'We're not going to start implementing Obamacare,' Gov. Jindal told reporters on a Friday morning conference call, before saying, 'We're going to work very hard to get Governor Romney elected so this law will be repealed long before the effective dates.'

On the specific issue of creating a state health insurance exchange -- which states have the choice to either set up and run themselves with government funding, or defer to the federal government to create and control -- some state lawmakers have signaled immediate opposition. Their unwillingness comes despite a January 2013 deadline for states to establish health exchange plans before the federal government does it for them.

'Senators do not intend to take up legislation this year to create a health benefit exchange,' said North Carolina Republican State Senate leader Phil Berger, 'the General Assembly needs time to process and understand this mixed ruling on Obamacare.'

Though no longer mandatory, the expansion of Medicaid coverage has drawn equal ire in states. Though the ACA offers full federal funding for expanded coverage for the first three years before state contributions eventually rise to 10 percent of Medicaid costs, some Republican state lawmakers have wasted no time portraying the law as a burdensome mandate.

'If this unfunded Medicaid expansion is implemented,' said Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman in a released statement, 'state aid to education and funding for the University of Nebraska will be cut or taxes will be increased. If some state senators want to increase taxes of cut education funding, I will oppose them.'

Florida Gov. Rick Scott, whose state helped lead the legal charge against President Obama's health care law, told WOKV in Jacksonville that he opposed an expansion of Medicaid coverage on the grounds that his state could not afford it.

Not all Republican state lawmakers took such a hardline against the ACA's implementation. The Salt Lake Tribune reported that Utah Gov. Gary Herbert plans to follow federal health care mandates for the time being, while refusing 'to do something that is going to bust our budget' in the future.

Former Office of Management and Budget director and Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, who plans to step down at the end of his term, took what on the surface seems a more moderate approach. Daniels said he would leave the decision on a possible Medicaid expansion to future state legislators.

Some GOP lawmakers have expressed their view that compliance with some key aspects of the health care law is a way to ensure at least some state control over the process. As CBS News reports, Republican Colorado state legislator Bob Gardner argued that by moving forward on the creation of insurance exchanges 'Colorado did the right thing by having a mechanism to do its best to impose a Colorado solution.'

In a similar statement, Michigan Republican Gov. Rick Snyder expressed his belief that 'working with our legislative leaders to establish the MiHealth Marketplace will allow Michiganders to make decisions regarding what will be covered as opposed to Washington, D.C., making those decisions for us.'

It remains unclear how some states will react to Thursday's Supreme Court decision, with many lawmakers conspicuously trying to keep their future options open.

'Game Off' For Jackson Jr.'s Higher-Office Aspirations?

The story of U.S. Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr.'s severely diminished prospects for becoming a real force in Chicago politics essentially begins and ends at 312, a restaurant across the street from City Hall.

That's where the Democratic congressman and a top aide sat at a sidewalk table on a sunny day in August 2005. They barely touched their lunches, working their cellphones for the latest news on then-Mayor Richard M. Daley's announcement that federal agents had questioned him.

Jackson ultimately balked at challenging Daley, but a little more than three years later, he was at 312 again.

Read the whole story at Chicago Sun-Times

Sanjay Sanghoee: Is Health Care Ruling Part of a Conservative Master-Plan?

The Supreme Court's upholding of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is a victory for President Obama, but one with a big problem attached to it. After all, there is a deadly tripwire concealed inside the court's seemingly benign ruling, and that is the court's declaration that the individual mandate provision, the heart of Obamacare, is legally valid because it is a de facto "tax."

By labeling the mandate a tax, the Supreme Court has given the Republicans powerful ammunition for the Presidential campaign. From now till November, it is a safe bet that Mitt Romney will take every opportunity to demonize the healthcare law as a vehicle for more taxation, and in the tough economic climate of today, his argument might hold some power. Scaring voters with the specter of new taxes may not be novel, but it is tried and tested.

So now we have to ask, what exactly did the Supreme Court do here? On the surface, they acted in a non-partisan manner to deliver real justice, but reading between the lines, it seems more as if Justice John Roberts deliberately sandbagged President Obama. Had the Supreme Court ruled against the healthcare law, or even just the mandate, the public's respect for the court would have declined dramatically, and Justice Roberts knew that. As an alternative, it appears as if he hatched a strikingly clever plan: uphold the law but interpret it in such a way as to give the Republicans a real chance to rally support against Obamacare and hopefully repeal it in the future. Not only that, but the ruling also limits Congress' authority to regulate commerce and weakens its power over the states.

One of Justice Roberts' statements in the opinion, which he wrote himself, drives his personal prejudice home very clearly: "It Is Not Our Job to Protect the People From the Consequences of Their Political Choices." It does not take a political analyst to decipher the ominous implication in that statement -- Justice Roberts thinks that the American people made the wrong choice by electing Obama and then letting him pass the healthcare law, but that it's just not the Supreme Court's role to do anything about it. Talk about passive aggressive.

The current Supreme Court may not be malicious but neither is it entirely impartial in its rulings, or apolitical. From Citizens United to immigration (by upholding the "show your papers" provision of the Arizona law) and now healthcare, the conservative wing of the court has repeatedly shown its preference for ideology over law.

Since the healthcare ruling, the news has been full of commentary about how Justice Roberts preserved the integrity of the court by upholding the president's signature law, but the truth is he did nothing of the sort. What he actually did was play a masterful stroke of chess that protects him and the other conservative Justices from public ridicule (save from a few right-wing extremists) while still playing ball with the Republicans. Justice Roberts may be conservative in his judicial thinking but he is also smart enough to know that striking down a populist law that will provide relief for millions of middle class and poor Americans is really bad politics.

Given all this, we should stop idolizing Justice Roberts' seemingly noble gesture and recognize it for what it really is -- a political gambit to help Romney win the elections in November and to push the United States towards the conservative agenda incognito. Only time will tell what this all leads to, but there is a very real chance that the vote that Justice Roberts cast in favor of the healthcare law was his most conservative one yet.

Follow Sanjay Sanghoee on Twitter: www.twitter.com/sanghoee

Dan Treadway: Hate Obamacare? Don't Worry, Here Are Some Countries You Can Move To

On the heels of the announcement of the Supreme Court's decision to uphold the majority of the Affordable Care Act, Buzzfeed released a compilation of tweets by outraged citizens claiming that they were going to move to Canada in an effort to avoid Obamacare.

While I may not agree with their utter disappointment at the prospect of roughly 40 million uninsured Americans being granted access to affordable health care, as a dual citizen of the U.S. and Canada, I feel somewhat of a responsibility to inform these people, in addition to those who have similar feelings but somehow held back from voicing them on Twitter, that Canada probably isn't the best place to go to avoid universal health care. In fact, it hasn't been since 1966.

While this may come as a disappointment to some who were hoping to blissfully drink Tim Horton's coffee while observing impoverished people die from treatable ailments, fear not: There are plenty of countries that you can move to where you'll have absolutely no government-mandated access to health care.

Perhaps you might consider moving to Haiti. Not only would you be able to dodge socialist doctors, but you might be able to avoid medical professionals altogether: The country only has 25 physicians per 100,000 people. While access to clean water may be a bit spotty, this is more than made up for by the short life expectancy and the absence of Barack Obamas. Pack your swimsuit!

But maybe Haiti is still a little too close to our socialist empire for comfort. (Dear God, what if America's newfound brand of Marxist, fascist dictatorship were to spread?!) Don't worry, because the majority of the continent of Africa is far away from both Obamacare -- and any sort of care whatsoever. In fact, for you diehard libertarians who hate having your government provide things, there aren't many places better-suited for you than Liberia. Not only will the Liberian government not provide you with health care, but it will also fail to provide for just about every other basic human need. It's no coincidence that the country's motto is, "The love of liberty brought us here," because nothing represents the anti-Obamacare brand of liberty than a very high risk of catching a serious infectious disease and a low likelihood of finding the resources to treat it. As a bonus for you fans of the Second Amendment who feel that it's necessary to have a gun on you at all times, you're going to love this beautiful land where that's probably a pretty good idea.

Now, I know what you're thinking: "But what if I hate Obamacare and also love human-rights violations? Where can I live to satisfy both these passions?" Worry not, friend, because I have four beautiful syllables for you: Turkmenistan. The former Soviet region not only abolished its free public health care in 2004, but it was also once again named as a chronic abuser of human rights by the United States State Department this past May.

There's really no reason to suffer through the grave injustice of universal health care when there is such a robust sampling of countries that (are not industrialized and) will happily allow you to not experience Obamacare. Granted, many have been plagued by poverty, unemployment, and civil war, but how is living in those conditions that different from life under the Obama administration? Have you seen that Rick Santorum ad? Spooky!

Of course, your other option is to continue to utilize your private health-care plan, as you are entitled to do, while taking pride in the fact that your country, which currently spends much more per capita on health care than any other nation in the world, has found a way to increase coverage for its citizens while reducing the deficit.

On the other hand, I hear Bangladesh is lovely this time of year.

Follow Dan Treadway on Twitter: www.twitter.com/dan_treadway

Project On Government Oversight: Intelligence Chief Uses Unreliable Lie Detector Technology to Plug Media Leaks

By DANA LIEBELSON and ADAM ZAGORIN

The late William Safire, conservative columnist and veteran of the Nixon White House, called the lie detector test a "form of torture" that "breeds the opposite of security." Writing in the New York Times a decade ago, he said "the hit-and-miss machine" had been thoroughly "discredited."

But this week, the nation's top intelligence official announced that the government is expanding its use of the polygraph to expose federal employees who leak classified information to the media.

The testing could put intelligence workers at risk of being falsely stigmatized, jeopardizing their careers and their ability to contribute to the national security. It also could have a chilling effect on employees considering blowing the whistle on government wrongdoing, whistleblower advocates said.

"It is clearly at odds with everything we learned in our report," said Stephen E. Fienberg, a professor of statistics and social science at Carnegie Mellon University who led a 2003 National Research Council study of the use of polygraphs in security screenings.

Briefing a Senate committee on the study in 2003, Fienberg put it this way: "Unfortunately tests that are sensitive enough to spot most violators will also mistakenly mark large numbers of innocent test takers as guilty."

In an interview with the Project On Government Oversight this week, Fienberg said the study's findings still apply.

But that's not to say the tests are useless.

Despite its ineffectiveness at detecting deception, the lie detector can serve as an interrogation tool, he said. If people believe it works, he said, it can intimidate them into admitting misconduct.

Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper broadened the government's embrace of the device this week after news reports described clandestine operations, including infiltration of the terrorist group al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and alleged cyber attacks on Iran's nuclear program. Members of Congress expressed outrage over the leaks, arguing that they compromise national security and damage U.S. diplomatic relations. The Justice Department has since opened probes.

In a news release, Clapper's office said it is trying to "better protect sensitive information, and help detect and deter potential leakers within the Intelligence Community."

Specifically, federal intelligence agencies will expand counter-intelligence polygraphs they already perform by adding a question about "unauthorized disclosure of classified information," the announcement said.

The question will be asked when employees with security clearances undergo routine polygraphs every seven years, according to news reports. In addition, Clapper spokesman Shawn Turner said that, under the new rules, if an inspector general's investigation gives reason to believe that a particular individual or group of individuals may have released classified information, the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) can direct those individuals to submit to a polygraph that includes questions about unauthorized disclosures to members of the media.

Turner declined to respond to arguments that the test is inaccurate. However, he said the new measures do not prevent whistleblowers from calling attention to waste, fraud, abuse, or other mismanagement.

The agencies involved include the CIA, FBI, National Security Agency, Department of Energy, National Reconnaissance Office, Defense Intelligence Agency, and National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency.

The new steps will send "a strong message that intelligence personnel always have, and always will, hold ourselves to the highest standard of professionalism," Clapper said in a news release.

The Obama Administration's latest step is part of a broader effort to plug leaks that has included more criminal prosecutions for national security leaks than pursued by any prior administration. Republicans, meanwhile, have accused the Administration of leaking about its own national security triumphs, such as the killing of Osama bin Laden. The president has denied that his White House "would purposely release classified national security information."

The American Polygraph Association, which represents people who administer the tests, says they have "great probative value." But the association's Web site notes limitations.

According to the group, research shows that tests focused on single issues or events "produced an aggregated decision accuracy of 89%," while testing that probed multiple issues "produced an aggregated decision accuracy of 85% (confidence interval 77% - 93%) with an inconclusive rate of 13%."

Such averages don't necessarily tell the whole story.

"You can have a test that averages 90 percent accuracy if it catches 100 percent of the liars, and mislabels 20 percent of the truth tellers," said Barry Cushman, the association's president-elect. "Still, there isn't anything better for catching deception and it's better than chance."

George Maschke, the cofounder of AntiPolygraph.org, a nonprofit that seeks to ban polygraph testing from the American workplace, said "being fearful for your own job security can lead an honest person to fail." Safire's column is one of many articles cited on the group's Web site.

Maschke has stated that he became interested in polygraphs after he applied to become a special agent with the FBI. He said he flunked a polygraph even though he answered truthfully and was essentially blackballed with no appeal.

The National Research Council, a private nonprofit institution that provides scientific advice to the government and other organizations, in 2003 reported that the testing "can lead to unnecessary loss of competent or highly skilled individuals in security organizations because of suspicions cast on them by false positive polygraph exams or because of their fear of such prospects."

"And it can lead to credible claims that agencies that use polygraphs are infringing civil liberties for insufficient benefits to the national security," the report said.

The bottom line: "Its accuracy in distinguishing actual or potential security violators from innocent test takers is insufficient to justify reliance on its use in employee security screening in federal agencies."

The National Research Council said that, despite the limitations, the use of polygraphs can deter people from breaching security, and the tests can prompt people to confess wrongdoing.

A federal judge in New York has publicly criticized a federal lie detector test as apparently leading to a false confession by Abdullah Higazy, who was caught up in an investigation related to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 and was accused of lying to the FBI.

If he had not been cleared through a nearly miraculous turn of events, U.S. District Court Judge Jed S. Rakoff said in a 2008 speech, "Mr. Higazy would now likely be rotting in prison or facing execution."

Jesselyn Radack, the Government Accountability Project's national security and human rights director, said the intelligence community is taking a backwards approach.

"I think it's for public perception -- to act as if they're being aggressive on leaking," she said.

"In the past, we've seen whistleblowers subject to mental evaluations, security clearance investigations, and I think this could easily become another tool of retaliation, rather than a tool to find out the truth," she said.

Dana Liebelson is POGO's Beth Daly Impact Fellow. Adam Zagorin is POGO's journalist in residence.

Follow Project On Government Oversight on Twitter: www.twitter.com/pogoblog

GOP Governors Resist Implementing Obamacare Despite Supreme Court Ruling

WASHINGTON -- Just because the Supreme Court affirmed that the Affordable Care Act is the law of the land, doesn't mean that Republican governors are rushing to follow it.

"We're not going to start implementing Obamacare. We're committed to working to elect Governor Romney to repeal Obamacare," said Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) Friday morning on a call with reporters hosted by the Republican National Committee.

The Affordable Care Act requires states to set up health care benefits exchanges to help Americans buy insurance. If a state fails to act, the federal government will operate that state's exchange program.

States have until Jan. 1, 2013, to demonstrate to the Department of Health and Human Services that it has a plan in place for the exchanges, which are required to be up and running by Jan. 1, 2014.

"On the exchanges, we've continued not to implement the exchanges in Louisiana. We're going to work very hard to get Governor Romney elected so this law will be repealed long before the effective dates," Jindal added.

Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) did not go as far as Jindal on the call, although he made clear that his state is not jumping to comply just yet.

"We don't even know exactly what that federal exchange would look like," he said. "So there's still some uncertainty at this point as to what the right course is. And over the next days and weeks we're going to be evaluating the case as well as the options for Virginia."

On Thursday, another leading Republican governor -- Wisconsin's Scott Walker -- similarly said, "Wisconsin will not take any action to implement Obamacare. I am hopeful that political changes in Washington, D.C., later this year ultimately end the implementation of this law at the federal level."

While Obama's health care mandate was upheld by the Supreme Court, there was a bit of good news for anti-Obama Republican governors in the ruling. Part of the Affordable Care Act sought to dramatically expand Medicaid to cover more uninsured Americans. On Thursday, the Supreme Court decided that states that refuse to comply will not lose all existing Medicaid funds. Instead, they simply will not receive new funds going forward.

The federal government has promised to pick up the full cost of the Medicaid expansion for the first three years, and reimburse 90 percent of the cost for states after that.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) held a call with reporters and bloggers on Thursday afternoon and said she believes that states will find the Medicaid funds hard to resist.

"A big expansion of Medicaid is part of this bill, as you know, and in order to make it saleable and tactical, we have 300 percent of the benefits described in this bill paid for in Medicaid to the states those first three years of the bill. I don't think the governors will turn that down," she said. "First of all, the people will have the need; the urgency is there. They don't have to have any matching funds."

"I believe that once this bill is rolling and states experience the benefits of it, it will be very hard for a state to say, 'I'm not taking 100 percent of the coverage that Medicaid would provide for these people.' That's our thinking on the subject," she added.

Neither Jindal nor McDonnell said whether they would accept the Medicaid funds.

"Here in Louisiana, we've not applied for the grants, we've not accepted many of these dollars," Jindal said. "We're not implementing the exchanges. We don't think it makes any sense to implement Obamacare in Lousiana. The next opportunity we have to get rid of this law is to get Governor Romney elected, and I absolutely believe that he will be elected in November, and one of his first actions will be to repeal and replace this law."

Individual Mandate Upheld, Supreme Court Ruling Defers To Obama And Congress

Chief Justice John Roberts ultimately sided with the Supreme Court's four liberals in upholding the Affordable Care Act, in effect showing the deference that President Obama had said in April was due to "a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."

But in writing the majority opinion, Roberts didn't afford the administration a complete victory.

Back in April, Obama had warned that it "would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step" if the Supreme Court overturned the health care reform law.

In the opinion, Roberts wrote:

This case concerns two powers that the Constitution does grant the Federal Government, but which must be read carefully to avoid creating a general federal authority akin to the police power.

Those two powers are the ones that allow Congress to "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes" and to "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States."

Roberts explained:

Our permissive reading of these powers is explained in part by a general reticence to invalidate the acts of the Nation's elected leaders. "Proper respect for a co-ordinate branch of the government" requires that we strike down an Act of Congress only if "the lack of constitutional authority to pass [the] act in question is clearly demonstrated." United States v. Harris, 106 U. S. 629, 635 (1883) . Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation's elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.

Yet the ruling's deference only went so far:

Our deference in matters of policy cannot, however, become abdication in matters of law. 'The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written.' Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 176 (1803). Our respect for Congress's policy judgments thus can never extend so far as to disavow restraints on federal power that the Constitution carefully constructed. 'The peculiar circumstances of the moment may render a measure more or less wise, but cannot render it more or less constitutional.' Chief Justice John Marshall, A Friend of the Constitution No. V, Alexandria Gazette, July 5, 1819, in John Marshall's Defense of McCulloch v. Maryland 190'191 (G. Gunther ed. 1969). And there can be no question that it is the responsibility of this Court to enforce the limits on federal power by striking down acts of Congress that transgress those limits. Marbury v. Madison, supra, at 175'176.

The questions before us must be considered against the background of these basic principles.

Roberts rejected the Obama administration's argument that the controversial individual mandate was valid under the Commerce Clause, because in this case the issue was an absence of commerce:

Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Congress already possesses expansive power to regulate what people do. Upholding the Affordable Care Act under the Commerce Clause would give Congress the same license to regulate what people do not do. The Framers knew the difference between doing something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it. Ignoring that distinction would undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers.

So the majority instead went to the government's Argument B:

The most straightforward reading of the individual mandate is that it commands individuals to purchase insurance. But, for the reasons explained, the Commerce Clause does not give Congress that power. It is therefore necessary to turn to the Government's alternative argument: that the mandate may be upheld as within Congress's power to "lay and collect Taxes." Art. I, §8, cl. 1. In pressing its taxing power argument, the Government asks the Court to view the mandate as imposing a tax on those who do not buy that product. Because "every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality," Hooper v. California, 155 U. S. 648, the question is whether it is "fairly possible" to interpret the mandate as imposing such a tax, Crowell v. Benson, 285 U. S. 22. Pp. 31'32.

And decided the mandate qualifies as a tax:

[A]nalysis suggests that the shared responsibility payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax. The payment is not so high that there is really no choice but to buy health insurance; the payment is not limited to willful violations, as penalties for unlawful acts often are; and the payment is collected solely by the IRS through the normal means of taxation. Cf. Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., 259 U. S. 20'37.

But it's not a total victory for Obamacare because:

Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justice Breyer and Justice Kagan, concluded in Part IV that the Medicaid expansion violates the Constitution by threatening States with the loss of their existing Medicaid funding if they decline to comply with the expansion. Pp. 45'58.

The four conservative justices who Roberts tends to side with wanted the entire law thrown out.

In their dissent, Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito describe the Affordable Care Act as a "massive state-administered federal welfare program," and argue that the decision should have been a no-brainer:

What is absolutely clear, affirmed by the text of the 1789 Constitution, by the Tenth Amendment ratified in 1791, and by innumerable cases of ours in the 220 years since, is that there are structural limits upon federal power'upon what it can prescribe with respect to private conduct, and upon what it can impose upon the sovereign States. Whatever may be the conceptual limits upon the Commerce Clause and upon the power to tax and spend, they cannot be such as will enable the Federal Government to regulate all private conduct and to compel the States to function as administrators of federal programs.

They wanted every bit of the law invalidated:

The Act before us here exceeds federal power both in mandating the purchase of health insurance and in denying nonconsenting States all Medicaid funding. These parts of the Act are central to its design and operation, and all the Act's other provisions would not have been enacted without them. In our view it must follow that the entire statute is inoperative.

Gov. Martin O'Malley: A ruling to move us forward

President Obama and Congress chose to pass the Affordable Care Act because the status quo was hurting our ability to create jobs, expand opportunity, and protect the health of our children and parents.

In upholding the Affordable Care Act, the U.S. Supreme Court chose to protect the lives of millions of Marylanders and millions of Americans. American businesses will be more competitive in the global economy with lower health care costs and a healthier workforce. Parents will be able to keep their children on their health care plans until age 26. Seniors will avoid the Medicare Donut Hole. And by 2014, no American will be denied health care coverage because of a pre-existing condition.

Today's decision gives considerable momentum to our health care reform efforts here in Maryland. What it does not -- and indeed must not -- do, is give us license to take our eye off the ball or slow our progress. Moms, dads, and kids throughout Maryland are counting on their elected leaders to continue the mission of lowering costs, and improving the quality of care.

We remain as committed as ever to moving forward on behalf of our families. We must move forward, not back.

CNN Flubs Supreme Court Decision, But It Was Perhaps Inevitable

Well, after all of the warnings of CNN's general awfulness I have offered, who was tuned into the most trusted name in holograms at the moment the Supreme Court dropped its decision on the Affordable Care Act? Me. Like a moron. And today was the day that CNN decided to etch its name in the annals of news fails, reporting inaccurately that the individual mandate had been struck down by the Supreme Court.

It hadn't. In fact, by the grace of the court's majority, the individual mandate lives and breathes. CNN's reporting begat a flurry of reaction on Twitter, in which HuffPost and other news organizations took part, and probably a moment of heartbreak for fans of the Affordable Care Act. After a pause, however, it became clear that that the mandate, and the law, had survived. It was a ruling that few predicted, and which required a modicum of patience to understand. CNN was the least patient in a world of Court-watchers all chomping at the bit, and so, they take the hit. But when you step back and think about the way this story built up over the past few months, it was probably inevitable that someone would get it wrong.

Today's woes began when Kate Bolduan, CNN's congressional correspondent, reported the news on the air. She got tripped up in the language over the Commerce Clause, which the court found to be insufficient backing for the individual mandate. What Bolduan missed was the latter part of the opinion, which found that the mandate could be upheld as a tax.

The horse fled the barn almost immediately. CNN plastered the screen with a chyron indicating that the mandate had been struck down, and John King began analyzing the matter as if it were a done deal: "The Justices have just gutted the centerpiece provision of the health care law." CNN sent out a breaking news alert via email. Mere seconds later, Fox News reported the same thing, and with that, the news was everywhere.

At this point, perhaps the most significant thing being reported on the matter was from Amy Howe at SCOTUSBlog, who at 10:08 wrote into the site's live blog: "Parsing it ASAP."

Now, let's defend CNN a little bit here. Coming into today, everyone in the news business was primed to expect this ruling to go against the White House. And as the law has faced various legal challenges on its way to the Supreme Court, there has been a distinct tendency on the media's part to make a bigger deal of the rulings that have gone against the Affordable Care Act, while downplaying those occasions where judges have upheld the law. We're all pretty definitively oriented in the direction of accounting for big changes to the status quo. We're less inclined to see the law succeeding, more or less as it was intended, as a big deal.

It's also a fairly nifty bit of legal decision-making that very few people predicted. One who did was Talking Points Memo's Brian Beutler, who back in March perceived that Chief Justice John Roberts had "tipped his hand" on how he was going to rule on the matter:

In an exchange with a plaintiffs attorney, Roberts suggested he's skeptical that the mandate and its penalties can be treated separately and may have opened the door to finding that Congress' power to impose the mandate springs from its broad taxing power.

'The idea that the mandate is something separate from whether you want to call it a penalty or tax just doesn't seem to make much sense,' Roberts said, over strong objections from attorney Gregory Katsas. 'It's a command. A mandate is a command. If there is nothing behind the command, it's sort of, well what happens if you don't file the mandate? And the answer is nothing. It seems very artificial to separate the punishment from the crime. ' Why would you have a requirement that is completely toothless? You know, buy insurance or else. Or else what? Or else nothing.'

Very few people joined Beutler in his making this prediction. One who did was Jonathan Cohn of the New Republic, who, in a conversation with The Huffington Post's Sam Stein this past weekend, predicted the mandate would be preserved as a tax.

Part of the reason that very few people saw this coming is because all the attention focused on Justice Anthony Kennedy as the Court's key swing vote on the matter. I doubt you'd find many people who would have predicted before today that Roberts would join with the liberal wing of the court and Kennedy would rule in the opposite direction. (Fox News personalities are having a particularly hard time concealing their disappointment with Roberts this morning.)

And President Barack Obama himself very explicitly stated that he did not consider the individual mandate to be a tax, in an appearance in 2009 on "This Week With George Stephanopoulos." The Wall Street Journal chronicles their exchange in full, but here's the essential part:

Mr. Stephanopoulos: I wanted to check for myself. But your critics say it is a tax increase.

Mr. Obama: My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say that I'm taking over every sector of the economy. You know that. Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we're going to have an individual mandate or not, but ...

Mr. Stephanopoulos: But you reject that it's a tax increase?

Mr. Obama: I absolutely reject that notion.

Media organizations, of course, operate under their own individual mandate, most importantly the need for speed -- getting it fastest and getting it first. When you add that factor to the rest of the tidal forces directing coverage this morning, it's disappointing that CNN got this wrong, but it's not surprising. As they say, "There but for the grace of God go I," and over at the Associated Press, that is the dictum they seem to be following in response to CNN's mistake. Earlier this morning, the AP's Central U.S. region editor David Scott fired off a stern email to his staff: "Please, immediately, stop taunting on social networks about CNN and others' SCOTUS ruling mistake and the AP getting it right."

"In his opinion, Justice Roberts initially said that the individual mandate was not a valid exercise of Congressional power under the Commerce Clause," a CNN spokesperson said in a statement. "CNN reported that fact, but then wrongly reported that therefore the court struck down the mandate as unconstitutional. However, that was not the whole of the Court's ruling. CNN regrets that it didn't wait to report out the full and complete opinion regarding the mandate. We made a correction within a few minutes and apologize for the error."

Nevertheless, sometime around eleven o'clock tonight, Jon Stewart will probably come on teevee and commence to chopping off CNN's head. I, who tweeted their breaking news like a parakeet, volunteer to lay my own head on the guillotine alongside them.

UPDATE: Michael Hastings at Buzzfeed has spoken to several CNN staffers, and there is a substantial amount of in-house criticism being passed around:

And a half dozen top on-air reporters and producers within the esteemed news organization told BuzzFeed they are furious at what they see as yet another embarrassment to a network stuck in third place in the cable news race, and torn between an identity as the leader in hard news and the success of their opinionated, personality-driven rivals, Fox News and MSNBC.

'Fucking humiliating,' said one CNN veteran. 'We had a chance to cover it right. And some people in here don't get what a big deal getting it wrong is. Morons.'

'Shameful,' another long-time correspondent told BuzzFeed.

But Hastings reports that CNN's legal correspondent Jeffrey Toobin is trying to keep a grip on things: "'It looked to all the world like the chief justice was going to strike down the law." He's right. Go read Hastings' whole piece for more.

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not?]

Supreme Court Holds The Fate Of Millions Of Americans In Its Hands

An odyssey that began during the presidency of Teddy Roosevelt and dominated much of President Barack Obama's first term in the White House could conclude Thursday at the Supreme Court. With it could end the best hope to date for the nearly 50 million Americans without health insurance and the hundreds of millions more burdened by rising costs.

The Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision sometime after 10 a.m. Thursday in a lawsuit brought by 26 states and the National Federation of Independent Business that challenges the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, the health care reform law Obama signed on March 23, 2010. Chief Justice John Roberts and his fellow justices could side with the president and allow the law to take root as intended by Congress. But the Supreme Court may elect to overturn the entire law, or just components of it, and in the process destroy or at least derail the most ambitious effort ever taken to address the shortcomings of the American health care system.

Health care has become the "issue from hell" and politicians won't tackle it again for many years if Obama's law goes down, said Drew Altman, the president and CEO of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, a health-care research institution in Menlo Park, Calif. "It's hard to imagine this Congress under almost any scenario, Democrats and Republicans in this Congress, agreeing on substantial health reform legislation."

Instead, the nation would be stuck with a status quo in which the ranks of the uninsured continue to swell, more workers lose their company health insurance, premiums rise, benefits shrink and more people skip medical treatments because of cost. Meanwhile, the nation's health care bill, which was an estimated $2.7 trillion last year, will continue to devour an ever-larger share of the economy.

A ruling against the law would be a major blow to Obama, who achieved a goal that eluded presidents from Roosevelt to Richard Nixon to Bill Clinton, though the issue bedeviled him from the start and voters remain sharply divided over it. The Supreme Court's decision will also shape public opinion about its role in American politics and redefine the limits of Congress' power. And the fate of the health care reform law will also influence the presidential contest between Obama and Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican nominee who has vowed to repeal the law if elected. Opponents view the law as an unaffordable expansion of the federal government's role in the health care system that places burdensome regulations on health care companies, employers and citizens.

But the stakes are higher for the the tens of millions of Americans who lack access to health care. Fully overturning the Affordable Care Act would deny about 30 million uninsured Americans access to the health benefits that would have been provided under the health care reform starting in 2014. Invalidating health care reform also would eliminate consumer protections built into the law that would prohibit health insurance companies from refusing to cover people with pre-existing conditions, charging higher rates to women, kicking sick people off the rolls and setting lifetime limits on coverage of medical bills, among other practices permitted before the law took effect two years ago.

If this law goes away, so does the guarantee of access to health care for children like Wesley Josephson and Jackson Whaley who have pre-existing conditions and big medical expenses. Adults with serious illnesses like Sarah Lewis and Martha Olson would continue to face significant obstacles to finding health insurance. Older Americans like Wister Adrine and Patricia Morrison would lose extra help with their prescription drug costs.

Striking down the law would upend initiatives that aim to slow skyrocketing growth in health care costs. In addition to reducing Medicare spending by $455 billion through 2019, the health care reform law includes a plethora of programs designed to encourage medical providers to cut down on waste, improve safety and employ techniques known to be more effective. Health care reform also would levy a tax on the most expensive health insurance plans beginning in 2018 that is intended to encourage people to choose less costly plans. In addition, the law would establish an independent board tasked with constraining Medicare spending.

But the Supreme Court may not go that far and instead opt to invalidate only parts of the law. At the heart of the constitutional challenge is the health care law's so-called individual mandate, a requirement that almost all Americans obtain some form of health care coverage or face a financial penalty. The plaintiffs contend this mandate represents an overreach by the federal government into the personal and economic decisions of American consumers. The Obama administration insists it is within its rights to regulate how Americans pay for the health care services they inevitably will consume during their lives.

The Supreme Court could rule that the mandate is unconstitutional and strike it down while leaving the remainder of the law in place. But the Obama administration views the mandate as an essential counterpart to the regulations that require health insurance companies to sell plans to anyone regardless of health, age or gender and that limit those companies' ability to charge some people more than others. Cutting out the mandate alone will reduce the number of newly covered Americans and make health insurance more expensive, the administration argues, because only sick people would be motivated to purchase insurance. If the mandate goes, according to the administration, so too must those regulations.

But if the Supreme Court goes this way -- striking down the mandate and the regulations -- then health insurance companies could carry on discriminating against the sick and the old and making women pay higher premiums than men, and the number of people who would gain health insurance coverage would be millions fewer.

Related on HuffPost:

• 1912

  Former President Theodore Roosevelt champions national health insurance as he unsuccessfully tries to ride his progressive Bull Moose Party back to the White House. (Photo by Topical Press Agency/Getty Images)

• 1935

  President Franklin D. Roosevelt favors creating national health insurance amid the Great Depression but decides to push for Social Security first. (Photo by Keystone/Getty Images)

• 1942

  Roosevelt establishes wage and price controls during World War II. Businesses can't attract workers with higher pay so they compete through added benefits, including health insurance, which grows into a workplace perk. (Photo by Hulton Archive/Getty Images)

• 1945

  President Harry Truman calls on Congress to create a national insurance program for those who pay voluntary fees. The American Medical Association denounces the idea as "socialized medicine" and it goes nowhere. (Photo by Keystone/Getty Images)

• 1960

  John F. Kennedy makes health care a major campaign issue but as president can't get a plan for the elderly through Congress. (Photo by Keystone/Getty Images)

• 1965

  President Lyndon B. Johnson's legendary arm-twisting and a Congress dominated by his fellow Democrats lead to creation of two landmark government health programs: Medicare for the elderly and Medicaid for the poor. (AFP/AFP/Getty Images)

• 1974

  President Richard Nixon wants to require employers to cover their workers and create federal subsidies to help everyone else buy private insurance. The Watergate scandal intervenes. (Photo by Keystone/Getty Images)

• 1976

  President Jimmy Carter pushes a mandatory national health plan, but economic recession helps push it aside. (Photo by Central Press/Getty Images)

• 1986

  President Ronald Reagan signs COBRA, a requirement that employers let former workers stay on the company health plan for 18 months after leaving a job, with workers bearing the cost. (MIKE SARGENT/AFP/Getty Images)

• 1988

  Congress expands Medicare by adding a prescription drug benefit and catastrophic care coverage. It doesn't last long. Barraged by protests from older Americans upset about paying a tax to finance the additional coverage, Congress repeals the law the next year. (TIM SLOAN/AFP/Getty Images)

• 1993

  President Bill Clinton puts first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton in charge of developing what becomes a 1,300-page plan for universal coverage. It requires businesses to cover their workers and mandates that everyone have health insurance. The plan meets Republican opposition, divides Democrats and comes under a firestorm of lobbying from businesses and the health care industry. It dies in the Senate. (PAUL J. RICHARDS/AFP/Getty Images)

• 1997

  Clinton signs bipartisan legislation creating a state-federal program to provide coverage for millions of children in families of modest means whose incomes are too high to qualify for Medicaid. (JAMAL A. WILSON/AFP/Getty Images)

• 2003

  President George W. Bush persuades Congress to add prescription drug coverage to Medicare in a major expansion of the program for older people. (STEPHEN JAFFE/AFP/Getty Images)

• 2008

  Hillary Rodham Clinton promotes a sweeping health care plan in her bid for the Democratic presidential nomination. She loses to Obama, who has a less comprehensive plan. (PAUL RICHARDS/AFP/Getty Images)

• 2009

  President Barack Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress spend an intense year ironing out legislation to require most companies to cover their workers; mandate that everyone have coverage or pay a fine; require insurance companies to accept all comers, regardless of any pre-existing conditions; and assist people who can't afford insurance. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)

• 2010

  With no Republican support, Congress passes the measure, designed to extend health care coverage to more than 30 million uninsured people. Republican opponents scorned the law as "Obamacare." (Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

• 2012

  On a campaign tour in the Midwest, Obama himself embraces the term "Obamacare" and says the law shows "I do care." (BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP/Getty Images)

MA-2012 President: 55% Obama (D), 39% Romney (R) (PPP 6/22-6/24)

PPP (D)
6/22/12-6/24/12; 902 likely voters, 3.3% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
PPP release

Massachusetts

Obama Job Approval
53% approve, 43% disapprove (more polls)

2012 President
55% Obama (D), 39% Romney (R) (chart)

Also on HuffPost:

Alex MacDonald: We Condemn Assad's Crime... While Giving His Main Dealer a Warm Welcome

In two weeks the arms fair Farnborough is coming to the UK with its official welcome reception to be held in the Natural History Museum. Masquerading as an airshow, the fair will bring together 37 buyer countries including Algeria, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Libya.

The arms companies (whoops, I suppose we're supposed to call them "security technologies salesmen") present will be:

• Lockheed Martin
• BAE Systems
• Boeing
• General Dynamics
• Raytheon
• EADS
• Finmeccanica
• L-3 Communications
• United Technologies
• Thales
• Rosoboronexport

Now, that's a dodgy bunch of guys for anyone who knows anything about what arms traders get up to, but for now let's turn our attention to Rosoboronexport. They are a "federal state unitary enterprise acting as the sole Russian state intermediary agency for export and import of military and dual-purpose products" according to their website.

They also happen to be the main supplier of weapons to the Assad regime in Syria.

According to an interview with spokesman Vyacheslav Davidenko in February in the New York Times:

"We understand the situation has become aggravated in Syria. But since there are no international decisions, and there are no sanctions from the UN Security Council, and there are no other decisions, our cooperation with Syria - the military-technical cooperation - remains quite active and dynamic."

Shameless, eh?

Some might find it rather strange that the UK would be hosting this company when William Hague, our foreign secretary has called for tougher sanctions on Syria and condemned their actions as "outrageous" and whatever. Actually, to be honest, if you know anything about the arms trade, you'd hardly be surprised. 74% of the world's weapons flow from China, France, UK, USA and Russia. The UK is the world's fifth largest arms exporter - now, considering the number of perfectly sensible, internationally lauded and UN-approved wars and conflicts that happen in the world, it'd hardly be surprising that the UK ends up selling to rather fairly shady characters. To quote Salil Shetty, the General Secretary of Amnesty International:

"Powerful states have shown that they cannot be trusted to put human life and dignity before profit."

Last year I spoke to journalist and former ANC MP Andrew Feinstein, a campaigner who has uncovered the reckless corruption and exploitation that this business entails:

"The grey and black markets in weapons, which are effectively quasi and fully illegal markets, are an extremely important part of the formal government to government weapons trade because when those weapons are first manufactured, their value is increased by the knowledge that they are going to have myriad life cycles through the grey and then the black markets. So they are inevitably because of a lack of controls and regulation, going to be sold to people who probably shouldn't have them. So you have these constant moments of conflict irony, I suppose we could call them."

'Conflict irony' would perfectly sum up our government's attitude towards Rosoboronexport - willingly allowing this company to set up shop and make sales in the UK with the full knowledge that they are also the foremost suppliers of a regime which they continue to publicly condemn. It's a bit like setting up a drug lab right next to a rehab clinic and just shrugging your shoulders and going "I don't see the problem here!"

What can be done?

On the 2 July, negotiations will begin at the UN for an Arms Trade Treaty. According to the UN:

The Arms Trade Treaty Conference will take place at United Nations Headquarters in New York on 2 - 27 July 2012. Negotiations will be carried out by the 193 Member States of the UN. In addition, hundreds of representatives from non-governmental organizations, public interest groups, the arms industry, media and inter-governmental organisations will attend.

This offers a unique opportunity in history for the world's power to finally agree to regulate this most lucrative of industries and bring a modicum of control to the state of violent bedlam which the world currently seems to reside in. Naturally, it doesn't sound too promising. Feinstein was pessimistic:

"I fear what it might be is simply an endorsement of the status quo as it currently exists whereas if it was a very, very strong treaty with serious anti-corruption measures to ensure that the trade in weapons didn't intensify existing conflicts, didn't exacerbate human rights situations in certain parts of the world. If it was that strong a treaty I think too many members of the UN wouldn't support it."

People need to take greater awareness of the dark nature of the international arms trade. Nonsense about how it's our only manufacturing base left need to be dismissed (only around 55,000 people work in arms exports today) and we need to realise the incredible harm that is caused around the world by an unregulated arms trade.

On the 9 July, Campaign Against the Arms Trade (CAAT) will begin their protests against the Farnborough "air show" at the Natural History Museum. I suggest we all join them

If our governments aren't willing to take control of this issue, which causes misery for millions the world over, it's up to us to do it instead. Tell them that we are NOT happy with this.

Follow Alex MacDonald on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@AlexJayMac

Romney Bus Taunts Obama Supporters Again

Presumptive GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney often makes a point of claiming to be a practical joker, though many have questioned the nature of some of his most famed "pranks." On Monday, Romney's sense of humor was again on display when his campaign repeated a stunt involving driving its bus around President Barack Obama supporters while honking.

BuzzFeed's Zeke Miller reports:

Romney's campaign bus circled Obama's fundraiser at Boston Symphony Hall Monday night several times, according to Romney deputy press secretary Ryan Williams and verified by several onlookers who said it was honking its horn as it passed.

Williams told BuzzFeed that the bus made "a few" laps before local police closed the roads around the venue before Obama's arrival. They plan on bringing the bus back after Obama leaves to attend another fundraiser.

Similar taunting drew negative reviews from some onlookers earlier this month, when the Romney bus, in the midst of a six-state tour, circled Obama supporters and blared its horn at a campaign event in Ohio. One Obama spokesperson slammed the act as "juvenile tactics" that reflected poorly on Romney.

Such incidents between the two campaigns have grown increasingly caustic. Romney supporters aggressively heckled Obama adviser David Axelrod at a news conference last month, drawing criticism from Axelrod and the Obama campaign, who claimed it was indicative of Romney's persona. In a later interview, Romney declined to condemn the loud protests, saying that American politics has a "long history of heckling and free speech."

Of course, protesters have also targeted Romney's campaign. Two separate cars, one bearing a dog on top of the roof -- a reminder of Seamus the Irish Setter's trip to Canada in a crate atop Romney's station wagon -- and another carrying a human-sized pack of birth control pills, have both announced plans to follow the Romney bus tour.

Below, a playlist describing Romney's greatest hits:

• With A Little Help From My Friends (Joe Cocker)

  <strong><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/28/mitt-romney-will-not-repu_n_1551540.html" target="_hplink">(May 28, 2012) --</a></strong> Despite a resurgence of <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/05/25/mitt-romney-s-new-bff-donald-trump.html" target="_hplink">Donald Trump's birther claims</a>, Romney refused to repudiate the billionaire, who has been helping with his 2012 campaign efforts. "You know, I don't agree with all the people who support me ... I need to get 50.1 percent or more and I'm appreciative to have the help of a lot of good people," Romney said. (Photo by Ethan Miller/Getty Images)

• Who Let The Dogs Out (Baha Men)

  <strong><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/16/mitt-romney-seamus_n_1429925.html" target="_hplink">(April 16, 2012) -- </a></strong> In an interview with ABC's Diane Sawyer, Romney discussed the political fallout over strapping his dog Seamus to a car roof. He admits that he probably would not do it again. (Handout)

• It's The End Of The World As We Know It (R.E.M.)

  <strong><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/04/mitt-romney-medicare-president-obama_n_1403267.html" target="_hplink">WASHINGTON, D.C. (April 4, 2012) --</a></strong> Speaking before the Newspaper Association of America, Romney attacked Barack Obama on his health record, claiming the president "has taken a series of steps that end Medicare as we know it." (Photo: Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images)

• For The Love Of Money (The O'Jays)

  <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/14/mitt-romney-i-made-a-lot-of-money_n_1345516.html" target="_hplink"><strong>NEW YORK, N.Y. (March 14, 2012) -- </strong></a> Romney became testy on Fox News while discussing his appeal to lower-income voters. On the same day, Occupy Wall Street protesters staged a demonstration outside Mitt's Waldorf Astoria hotel fundraiser. (Photo: Emmanuel Dunand/AFP/Getty Images)

• People Are Strange (The Doors)

  <strong><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/09/mitt-romney-south_n_1334478.html" target="_hplink">PASCAGOULA, Miss. (March 9, 2012) --</a></strong> While on the trail in Alabama and Mississippi, Romney got in touch with his Southern side, learning how to say "y'all" and liking his grits. With those new experiences in hand, he admitted that "strange things are happening to me." (Photo: AP/Evan Vucci)

• Pink Cadillac (Bruce Springsteen)

  <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/24/mitt-romney-cadillac_n_1299740.html" target="_hplink"><strong>DETROIT, Mich. (Feb. 24, 2012) -- </strong></a> While speaking before the Detroit Economic Club at Ford Field, Romney listed not two, not three, but four American-made cars that he and his wife, Ann, owned. Among the vehicles: "a couple of Cadillacs." (Photo: Scott Olson/Getty Images)

• It's The Hard-Knock Life (Annie & The Orphans)

  <strong><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/01/mitt-romney-very-poor_n_1246557.html" target="_hplink">TAMPA, Fla. (Feb. 1, 2012) --</a></strong> In an interview with CNN, Romney noted that he is "not concerned about the very poor," citing the social safety net for that segment of the populace. (Photo: Ethan Miller/Getty Images)

• America The Beautiful

  <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/31/mitt-romney-america-the-beautiful-_n_1243908.html" target="_hplink"><strong>THE VILLAGES, Fla. (Jan. 31, 2012) --</strong></a> On the eve of Florida's primary, Romney led his supporters in a singing of the patriotic song. (Photo: Emmanuel Dunand/AFP/Getty Images)

• Successful (Drake, Lil Wayne)

  <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/19/mitt-romney-tax-returns_n_1217708.html" target="_hplink"> <strong>CHARLESTON, S.C. (Jan. 19, 2012) -- </strong></a> During CNN's GOP debate, Romney refused to commit to disclosing his tax returns, offering no apologies for his success. (Photo: Emmanuel Dunand/AFP/Getty Images)

• Bye Bye Bye ('N Sync)

  <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/09/mitt-romney-i-like-being-able-to-fire-people_n_1194115.html" target="_hplink"><strong>NASHUA, N.H. (Jan. 9, 2012) -- </strong></a> In a speech about insurance options, Romney tells audience members, "I like being able to fire people who provide services to me." (Photo:AP/Charles Dharapak)

• Don't Know Why (Norah Jones)

  <strong><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/28/mitt-romney-embraces-climate-change-denial_n_1063905.html" target="_hplink">PITTSBURGH, Pa. (Oct. 27, 2011) --</a></strong> Back in June 2011, Romney said humans are somewhat tied to climate change. By October, he had reversed course, saying "We don't know what causes climate change." (Photo: Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images)

Also on HuffPost:

Obama Sounds Warning To Supporters

The Obama campaign sounded an alarm to supporters Thursday urging them to donate, blasting an email titled, "I will be outspent."

"I will be the first president in modern history to be outspent in his re-election campaign, if things continue as they have so far," reads the email. "I'm not just talking about the super PACs and anonymous outside groups -- I'm talking about the Romney campaign itself. Those outside groups just add even more to the underlying problem."

"We can be outspent and still win -- but we can't be outspent 10 to 1 and still win."

The email blast follows a warning from officials on Wednesday that the campaign had been outspent by a three-to-one margin.

The email also attacks Romney for his weekend fundraising retreat at the lavish Park City, Utah resort of Deer Valley, where he met with top donors, top Republicans and Karl Rove, the co-founder of the American Crossroads super PAC.

Obama has held almost twice as many fundraisers in the third and fourth years of his term as George W. Bush held when he was running for reelection.

Below, a list of super PAC donors looking to make their mark on the 2012 elections:

• Sheldon Adelson And Family

  Sheldon Adelson, the Las Vegas casino magnate, and his family have combined to give $21.5 million to super PACs in the 2012 election cycle. The majority of that has gone to Winning Our Future, the super PAC supporting Newt Gingrich. Adelson is ranked on the <em>Forbes</em> list of the richest Americans at number eight, with $21.5 billion in net worth. Sheldon Adelson gave $7.5 million to Winning Our Future and his wife, Miriam, gave $7.5 million. His daughters Sivan Ochshorn and Shelley Maye Adelson each chipped in $500,000. Another daughter and her husband each gave $250,000. Adelson and his wife also gave $2.5 million each to the Congressional Leadership Fund. In May, Winning Our Future returned a $5 million contribution to Miriam Adelson. That dropped the total amount the family has contributed from $26.5 million to $21.5 million. That number is expected to increase by at least $10 million in June as Adelson has reportedly donated that sum to the pro-Mitt Romney Restore Our Future. Adelson remained in the number one spot among super PAC donors after counting contributions for May 2012. His involvement in politics revolves around his support for the state of Israel, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/11/sheldon-adelson-newt-gingrich-israel_n_1195867.html" target="_hplink">in particular the policies of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu</a>. His business, along with that of other super PAC donors, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/18/sheldon-adelson-bribery-super-pac-donors-fcpa_n_1602694.html" target="_hplink">is also under investigation</a> for violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

• Harold And Annette Simmons

  Harold Simmons, the octogenarian Dallas businessman, combined with his wife Annette and his company, Contran Corp., to donate $18.7 million to super PACs through May 2012. Simmons is listed in <em>Forbes</em> magazine as the 33rd richest person in America with a net worth of $9.3 billion. Simmons and Contran donated $13 million to American Crossroads, $1 million to Make Us Great Again (supporting Rick Perry), $1.1 million to Winning Our Future (supporting Newt Gingrich), $800,000 to Restore Our Future (supporting Mitt Romney) and $100,000 to Restoring Prosperity Fund (formerly Americans for Rick Perry). Annette Simmons gave $1.2 million to Red White And Blue Fund (supporting Rick Santorum). Simmons has also given $500,000 to Conservative Renewal PAC and Texas Conservatives Fund, both super PACs supporting Senate candidate David Dewhurst. Simmons -- who explained that he is contributing money to super PACs to <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/22/harold-simmons-obama_n_1371642.html">stop "that socialist," President Barack Obama</a> -- remains in second place among super PAC donors.

• Bob Perry

  Texas homebuilder Bob Perry contributed $6.8 million to super PACs through May 2012. Perry is one of the most prolific donors in contemporary political history. He was a major backer of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the outside group that helped torpedo John Kerry's presidential campaign in 2004. Perry's net worth has been estimated at around $650 million. Perry has given $4 million to Restore Our Future (supporting Romney), $2.5 million to American Crossroads, $200,000 to Texas Conservatives Fund (supporting David Dewhurst), and $100,000 to Make Us Great Again (supporting Rick Perry, who is no relation).

• National Education Association

  The National Education Association, the largest U.S. labor union representing teachers, contributed $3.83 million to super PACs through May 2012. The union gave $3.58 million to its own super PAC, the NEA Advocacy Fund, $250,000 to DGA Action, and $5,000 to the Patriot Majority PAC.

• Peter Thiel

  Peter Thiel, the hedge fund manager, venture capitalist and early Facebook investor, contributed $3.74 million through May 2012 to super PACs. Thiel, a radical libertarian, ranks 293 on the <em>Forbes</em> list of richest Americans, with a net worth of $1.5 billion. The majority of Thiel's money, $2.74 million, has gone to Endorse Liberty, a super PAC supporting Ron Paul in the Republican presidential race. He also gave $1 million to Club for Growth Action in May.

• Jerry Perenchio

  Jerry Perenchio, founder of the Spanish language television network Univision, contributed $2.6 million to super PACs through April. Perenchio ranks 171 on the <em>Forbes</em> list of richest Americans, with a net worth of $2.3 billion. Perenchio gave $2 million to American Crossroads, $500,000 to Restore Our Future (supporting Mitt Romney), and $100,000 to Our Destiny (supporting Jon Huntsman).

• Joseph Craft And Alliance Management Holdings

  Joseph Craft and his holding company, Alliance Management Holdings, gave $2.6 million to super PACs through May 2012. Craft is ranked 331 on the <em>Forbes</em> list of richest Americans, with a net worth of $1.3 billion. Alliance Management Holdings owns the coal company Alliance Resource Partners. Craft and his company gave $2.1 million to American Crossroads, including $1.675 million in May, and $500,000 to Restore Our Future (supporting Romney).

• Cooperative Of American Physicians

  The <a href="http://www.capphysicians.com/about_us" target="_hplink">Cooperative of American Physicians</a> is a medical malpractice and medical liability insurer. The group has contributed $2,58. million to its own super PAC. No other information has been provided on the source of the funds contributed by the cooperative.

• AFL-CIO

  The AFL-CIO, the nation's largest federation of unions, contributed $2.3 million to super PACs through May 2012. The federation, boasting 12.2 million members, is made up of 57 national and international labor unions. Its funds come from the dues paid by members. The AFL-CIO gave $2.2 million to its own super PAC, and that super PAC gave $100,000 to American Bridge 21st Century.

• Foster Friess

  Foster Friess, the Wyoming investor, contributed $2.25 million to super PACs, mostly to those supporting the presidential candidacy of Rick Santorum. Friess is estimated to be worth above $500 million. He has given $2.1 million to Red White and Blue Fund (supporting Santorum), $100,000 to FreedomWorks and $50,000 to Leaders for Families (also supporting Santorum).

• William Dore

  William Dore, the Louisiana energy executive, gave $2.25 million to Red White and Blue Fund (supporting Santorum). This was the biggest foray into political giving by Dore, who has previously cut large checks for Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and the Republican Governors Association. He is estimated to be worth in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Credit: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_KzFkneorU" target="_hplink">YouTube</a>

• Jon Huntsman Sr.

  Jon Huntsman Sr., the billionaire Utah industrialist, contributed $2.22 million to a super PAC supporting the presidential candidacy of his son, Jon Huntsman Jr. Huntsman Sr. has given away much of his fortune in recent years and is estimated to be worth slightly north of $1 billion. Huntsman's contributions to Our Destiny, the super PAC backing his son in the Republican primary contest, came under scrutiny based on the laws banning coordination between super PACs and campaigns.

• Jeffrey Katzenberg

  Jeffrey Katzenberg, the CEO of DreamWorks Animation, has given gave $2.125 million to super PACs through May 2012. Katzenberg's net worth is estimated to be above $800 million. His biggest contribution was a $2 million gift to Priorities USA Action, the super PAC supporting Barack Obama's reelection bid. Katzenberg has also given $100,000 to Majority PAC and $25,000 to Committee to Elect An Effective Valley Congressman, the super PAC supporting Rep. Howard Berman (D-Calif.), a staunch ally of Hollywood. Katzenberg is also a major fundraiser for the Obama reelection campaign, having brought in more than $500,000.

• Robert Rowling And TRT Holdings

  Robert Rowling, the Texas billionaire who runs the business holding company TRT Holdings, has contributed $2.1 million to super PACs in the 2012 election cycle. Rowling ranks 66 on <em>Forbes'</em> list of richest Americans, with a net worth of $4.7 billion. He gave $2 million to American Crossroads and $100,000 to Restore Our Future (supporting Romney).

• Kenneth And Anne Griffin

  Kenneth Griffin, the head of the massive hedge fund Citadel, has contributed $2.08 million to super PACs through May 2012. Griffin is ranked 173rd on the <em>Forbes</em> list of richest Americans. In 2008, he helped raise money for then-Sen. Barack Obama during the Democratic primary, but switched to support Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in the general election. Griffin has since become increasingly critical of President Obama and what he considers to be class warfare rhetoric coming from the White House. He stated that the wealthy have "<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/11/ken-griffin-mitt-romney_n_1337721.html" target="_hplink">insufficient influence</a>" in politics and urged the rich to donate to political efforts to preserve their position atop the food chain. Griffin has given $1.05 million to Restore Our Future (supporting Mitt Romney) and $1 million to American Crossroads. His wife, Anne, gave $30,000 to the Campaign for Primary Accountability.

• Crow Holdings LLC And Harlan Crow

  Crow Holdings LLC, which manages the wealth of the late real estate developer Trammel Crow, and its director Harlan Crow contributed $2.05 million to super PACs through May 2012. Harlan Crow and the company combined to give $1.5 million to American Crossroads, $300,000 to Restore Our Future (supporting Romney) and $250,000 to FreedomWorks for America.

• Amy Goldman

  Amy Goldman, the author and activist who has been called "perhaps the world's premier vegetable gardener," contributed $2 million to super PACs through the end of May. Goldman is the heiress to the fortune of New York real estate titan Sol Goldman. Goldman gave $1 million to Priorities USA Action (supporting Barack Obama) and $1 million to Planned Parenthood Votes, the super PAC for the family planning services provider.

• William Koch, Oxbow Carbon And Huron Carbon

  William Koch, the lesser-known Koch brother, and two of his companies, petroleum, energy and minerals companies Oxbow Carbon and Huron Carbon, gave $2 million to Restore Our Future (backing Romney).

• FreedomWorks

  FreedomWorks, the conservative nonprofit organization, contributed $1.88 million to its super PAC, FreedomWorks for America. The group is run by former Rep. Dick Armey and was instrumental in organizing the original Tea Party protests in 2009. The super PAC has been active in Republican Senate primaries backing Richard Mourdock's successful campaign to beat Sen. Dick Lugar in Indiana. The group has also thrown its weight behind Ted Cruz in Texas and Don Stenberg in Nebraska. Stenberg lost his primary to state Sen. Deb Fischer and Cruz faces a run-off election against Texas Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst. The group is also spending money to defeat Sen. Orrin Hatch in Utah.

• American Federation Of Teachers

  The American Federation of Teachers, the second-largest union in the nation with 1.5 million members, gave $1.85 million to super PACs through May 2012. After nearly doubled its giving in March with $600,000 in contributions to super PACs the super PAC gave another $300,000 in April and added another $250,000 in May. The union donated $1 million to the AFL-CIO Workers' Voices PAC, $300,000 to House Majority PAC, $300,000 to Majority PAC, and $250,000 to DGA Action.

• National Association of Realtors

  The National Association of Realtors, the primary trade association for realtors, has contributed $1.81 million to its own super PAC in the 2012 election cycle. The group has long been a player in congressional elections and has already spent significant amounts to help Rep. Gary Miller (R-Calif.) hold his newly redistricted seat in the 2012 elections.

• Service Employees International Union

  The Service Employees International Union, the nation's fastest growing labor union representing close to 2 million people, contributed $1.76 million to super PACs through May. The union is one of the most politically active unions in the country. SEIU has given $1 million to Priorities USA Action (supporting Obama), $311,000 to House Majority PAC, $250,000 to Majority PAC, and $200,000 to American Bridge 21st Century.

• James Simons

  James Simons, the billionaire chairman of the hedge fund Renaissance Technologies, gave $1.5 million to Majority PAC, a super PAC that backs Democratic Senate candidates, through May 2012. Simons is ranked 30 on the <em>Forbes</em> list of richest Americans, with a net worth of $10.5 billion.

• Robert And Rebekah Mercer

  Robert Mercer (left), the co-CEO of the $15 billion hedge fund Renaissance Technologies, and his daughter, Rebekah Mercer, gave $1.415 million to super PACs through May 2012. Robert Mercer contributed $1 million to Restore Our Future (supporting Romney) and $350,000 to Club for Growth. Rebekah Mercer gave $50,000 to the Coalition for American Values and $15,000 to the Club for Growth.

• American Federation Of State, County And Municipal Employees

  The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the nation's largest public employee union with 1.6 million members, contributed $1.415 million to super PACs through May 2012. AFSCME is very politically active in local and national politics. In 2011, it faced direct attacks in such states as Ohio and Wisconsin, when Republican governors sought to curtail collective bargaining rights for public employees. AFSCME gave $500,000 to the AFL-CIO Workers' Voices PAC, $575,000 to American Bridge 21st Century, $315,000 to House Majority PAC and $25,000 to Women Vote!.

• Philip Geier

  Philip Geier, the former advertising magnate turned communications and venture capital adviser, contributed $1.35 million to super PACs through May 2012. Geier previously served as CEO of the Interpublic Group of Companies, a large advertising holding company. He currently helms the Geier Group, which provides consulting services on communications, advertising and venture capital. Geier gave $1,000,000 to American Crossroads and $350,000 to Restore Our Future (supporting Romney).

• Fred Eychaner

  Fred Eychaner, the Chicago-based media mogul who made his fortune with Newsweb Corp., gave $1.3 million to super PACs through May 2012. He is a longtime funder of outside groups backing Democrats, having contributed $2 million to so-called 527 groups in the effort to defeat President George W. Bush in 2004. Eychaner gave $500,000 to Priorities USA Action (supporting Obama), $350,000 to Majority PAC, $250,000 to House Majority PAC and $200,000 to America Votes Action Fund.

• Leo Linbeck

  Leo Linbeck, the Houston construction mogul, has given $1.26 million to the Campaign for Primary Accountability, a super PAC opposing both incumbent Democrats and Republicans facing primary challenges.

• Julian Robertson

  Julian Robertson, the hedge fund titan and founder of Tiger Management, contributed $1.25 million to Restore Our Future (supporting Romney) in the current election cycle. Robertson is ranked 166 on the <em>Forbes</em> list of richest Americans, with a net worth of $2.4 billion.

• Communications Workers Of America

  The Communications Workers of America, the largest telecommunications union in the world with a membership above 700,000, contributed $1,162,971 to super PACs in the 2012 election cycle. The union donated $902,971 to the Communications Workers of America super PAC, $190,000 to Independent Source, $50,000 to House Majority PAC and $20,000 to American Worker.

• National Air Traffic Controllers Association

  The National Air Traffic Controllers Association has given $1.1 million to super PACs during the 2012 election cycle. The union represents 20,000 controllers, engineers and other professionals involved in air traffic control. The union gave $1 million to Priorities USA Action (supporting Barack Obama) and $100,000 to the AFL-CIO Workers' Voices PAC.

• Frank VanderSloot & Melaleuca Inc.

  Frank VanderSloot and his multi-level marketing company, Melaleuca Inc., have contributed $1.1 million to Restore Our Future (supporting Romney). VanderSloot is a member of the Romney campaign's financial team and has a checkered history of bullying reporters and newspapers for writing about his business, which has been labeled a pyramid scheme by some, and his political activities. The 2004 <em>Forbes</em> list of richest Americans estimated VanderSloot's net worth to be $700 million.

• Miguel Fernandez And MBF Family Investments

  Miguel Fernandez, chairman of the private equity firm MBF Healthcare Partners, and MBF Family Investments, a company connected to Fernandez, contributed $1,025,000 to super PACs in the 2012 election cycle so far. Fernandez and MBF Family Investments gave $1,000,000 to Restore Our Future (supporting Romney), and Fernandez himself gave $25,000 to the Campaign for Primary Accountability.

• Dean White And Whiteco Industries

  Dean White, an Indiana billionaire, and his company Whiteco Industries contributed $1.025 million to super PACs through May 2012. White is ranked 281 on the <em>Forbes</em> list of richest Americans, with a net worth of $1.7 billion. His company is active in the billboard and hotel industries. Whiteco Industries gave $1 million to the Republican-leaning group American Crossroads, and White gave $25,000 to the Campaign for Primary Accountability.

• J. Joseph Ricketts

  J. Joseph Ricketts, the founder of TD Ameritrade and head of the family that owns the Chicago Cubs, has given $1.01 million to super PACs through May 2012. Ricketts ranked 371 on <em>Forbes'</em> list of richest Americans in 2009, with a net worth of $1 billion. He has donated $510,000 to his own super PAC, Ending Spending Action Fund, which spent all of that money to help Nebraska state Sen. Deb Fischer win the Republican Senate primary in the state. Ricketts has also given $500,000 the Campaign for Primary Accountability, a super PAC supporting challengers to incumbent Democrats and Republicans in contested congressional primary elections. Ricketts <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/17/joe-ricketts-jeremiah-wright-super-pac-ad_n_1525658.html" target="_hplink">became the focus of controversy</a> in May 2012 after the New York Times revealed that he was considering a proposal to fund, through a super PAC, advertisements attacking President Barack Obama with his relationship with his former pastor, the controversial Jeremiah Wright. After the publicity Ricketts and the consultants involved all stated that they were not going forward with the plan.

• Ed Conard

  Ed Conard, a former managing director of the private equity firm Bain Capital, gave $1 million to Restore Our Future, the super PAC supporting Mitt Romney, also formerly of Bain Capital. Conard's donation originally came in the form of a corporate contribution from a shell company named W Spann LLC. The company was created in 2011 solely to give the $1 million donation and then promptly folded. This led to a media goose chase for the source of the donation. Eventually, Conard unmasked himself and asked that the contribution be reattributed to his name. Conard has also made news for publishing a book that argues in favor of income inequality.

• Eli Publishing Inc.

  Eli Publishing Inc., a Provo, Utah-based shell company connected to executives Blake Roney and Steven Lund of the multi-level marketing company Nu Skin, contributed $1 million to Restore Our Future (supporting Romney). Neither Roney nor Lund have taken credit for the contribution from Eli Publishing. Both men are highly active in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The two executives donated 403,000 shares of Nu Skin stock to the church in 2010, which the church then sold for $10.3 million.

• F8 LLC

  F8 LLC, another Provo, Utah-based shell company connected to executives Blake Roney and Steven Lund of the multi-level marketing company Nu Skin, contributed $1 million to Restore Our Future (supporting Romney). Neither Roney nor Lund has taken credit for the contribution from F8 LLC. Both men are highly active in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The two executives donated 403,000 shares of Nu Skin stock to the church in 2010, which the church then sold for $10.3 million.

• John Paulson

  John Paulson, one of the wealthiest hedge fund chiefs, contributed $1 million to Restore Our Future (supporting Romney). He is ranked 17 on the <em>Forbes</em> list of richest Americans, with a net worth of $15.5 billion. Paulson notoriously made billions by betting against the U.S. housing market during the lead-up to the economic collapse of 2008.

• Paul And Sandra Edgerly

  Paul Edgerly, a former managing director of Bain Capital, and his wife, Sandra, combined to give $1 million to Restore Our Future, the super PAC backing Mitt Romney, also formerly of Bain Capital.

• Paul Singer

  Paul Singer (far right), the hedge fund titan in charge of Elliot Associates, contributed $1 million to Restore Our Future (supporting Romney). Singer has an estimated worth of $900 million.

• Rooney Holdings

  Rooney Holdings, the company formerly run by L. Francis Rooney, contributed $1 million to Restore Our Future (backing Romney). Rooney is a former ambassador to the Vatican and a past major donor to the campaigns of President George W. Bush. The company is involved in many large-scale construction projects, including the George W. Bush Presidential Library.

• Virginia James

  Virginia James, an investor based in New Jersey, has donated $1 million to the Club for Growth super PAC through March 2012. James is not a well-known donor, but has given large sums to Club for Growth in the past and was invited to the Koch brothers' donor retreat in 2011.

• Bill Maher

  Bill Maher, the comedian who hosts HBO's "Real Time With Bill Maher," contributed $1 million to Priorities USA Action, the super PAC supporting President Obama. Maher <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/24/bill-maher-super-pac-obama-_n_1299250.html" target="_hplink">gave the million dollars</a> after the Obama campaign officially endorsed the super PAC's efforts.

• Irving Moskowitz

  Irving Moskowitz, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/12/irving-moskowitz-israeli-settlements-anti-obama-super-pac_n_1416041.html">the bingo tycoon and funder of Israeli settlements in the West Bank</a>, gave $1 million to American Crossroads. This is the largest contribution to a political committee that Moskowitz has ever made.

• J.W. Marriott

  J.W. "Bill" Marriott, the head of Marriott International, gave $1 million to Restore Our Future (supporting Romney). Mitt Romney and the Marriotts are very close, with Romney having served on the board of the worldwide hotel chain. Both Romney and Bill Marriott are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Marriott ranks 331 on the <em>Forbes</em> list of richest Americans, with a net worth of $1.3 billion.

• Richard Marriott

  Richard Marriott, chairman of the board of Marriott International, gave $1 million to Restore Our Future (backing Romney). Mitt Romney and the Marriotts are very close, with Romney having served on the board of the worldwide hotel chain. Both Romney and Richard Marriott are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Marriott ranks 312 on the <em>Forbes</em> list of richest Americans, with a net worth of $1.4 billion.

• Kareem Ahmed

  Kareem Ahmed, the CEO of medical billing company Landmark Medical Management, has given $1 million to Priorities USA Action, the super PAC supporting President Obama, through May 2012. (Pictured: President Obama, the candidate supported by Ahmed's contributions.)

• James Davis

  James Davis, the CEO of New Balance Shoes, has given $1 million to Restore Our Future (supporting Romney). Davis ranks 242 on the <em>Forbes</em> list of richest Americans, with a net worth of $1.8 billion.

• Steven Webster

  Steven Webster, the CEO of the private equity firm Avista Partners, has given $1 million to Restore Our Future (supporting Romney) during the 2012 election cycle.

• Unite Here

  Unite Here, a diverse labor union representing workers in the airport, food service, gaming, hotel, textile and laundry industries, contributed $1 million to the AFL-CIO Workers' Voices PAC through May 2012.

• National Association Of Letter Carriers

  The National Association of Letter Carriers' political action committee, the Committee on Letter Carriers Political Education Fund, gave $1 million to super PACs during the 2012 election cycle. The union gave $500,000 to the AFL-CIO super PAC, Workers' Voice, and $500,000 to House Majority PAC.

• John Kleinheinz

  John Kleinheinz, a Texas-based hedge fund manager, contributed $1 million to Restore Our Future, the super PAC supporting Romney's presidential campaign, in April 2012. (Pictured: Mitt Romney, the candidate supported by Kleinheinz's contribution.)

• Harold Hamm

  Harold Hamm, CEO of the oil company Continental Resources, gave $985,000 to Restore Our Future, the pro-Mitt Romney super PAC, in April 2012. Hamm is listed as the 36th richest American by <em>Forbes</em> with an estimated net worth of $7.5 billion. He also works as an energy advisor for Romney's campaign.

• Kenny Troutt

  Kenny Troutt, the telecommunications billionaire, contributed $900,000 to super PACs through May 2012. Troutt was the head of Excel Communications, a multi-level marketing company, until he sold it for $3.5 billion in 1998. He now focuses on racing horses. Troutt gave $500,000 to American Crossroads, $150,000 to Red White And Blue Fund (supporting Rick Santorum), $150,000 to Make Us Great Again (supporting Rick Perry), $50,000 to Americans for Rick Perry, and $50,000 to the Texas Conservatives Fund (supporting David Dewhurst).

• The Morses & The Villages

  H. Gary Morse, his wife, their children and the retirement community they operate, The Villages, have combined to contribute $865,900 to Restore Our Future (supporting Mitt Romney) in the 2012 election cycle. H. Gary Morse is part of Romney's Florida finance team and has hosted fundraisers for the former Massachusetts governor. The family's super PAC giving has all gone to support Romney's bid.

• Anne Earhart

  Anne Catherine Getty Earhart, the granddaughter of the oil tycoon J. Paul Getty, has given $850,000 to super PACs through May 2012. Earhart received $400 million when Texaco purchased Getty Oil in 1986. She is active in environmental issues. Earhart gave $600,000 to American Bridge 21st Century and $250,000 to Priorities USA Action (supporting President Obama). (Pictured: President Obama, the candidate Earhart's contributions support.)

• DRIVE PAC

  The Democrat, Republican, Independent Voter Education PAC gave $810,000 to super PACs through May 2012. DRIVE is the chief political finance committee of the Teamsters union, which has 1.4 million members. DRIVE donated $400,000 to America Votes Action Fund, $210,000 to House Majority PAC and $200,000 to Majority PAC.

• Jerry And Marilyn Hayden

  Jerry and Marilyn Hayden combined to contribute $810,000 to super PACs through the end of May 2012. The couple has given $700,000 to Club for Growth Action and $110,000 to FreedomWorks for America. (Pictured: The logo of the Club for Growth, the group receiving the largest super PAC contributions made by the Haydens.)

• Robert Arnott

  Robert Arnott, the investment manager in charge of Research Affiliates, gave $750,000 to super PACs in the 2012 election cycle so far. Arnott gave $500,000 to Club for Growth and $250,000 to Our Destiny (supporting Huntsman).

• Chris Shumway

  Chris Shumway, the former hedge fund manager, gave $750,000 to Restore Our Future (supporting Romney). Shumway is a former employee of the massive hedge fund Tiger Management and retired from his own hedge fund, Shumway Capital Partners, in 2011. (Pictured: Mitt Romney, the candidate Shumway supports through his super PAC giving.)

• Jackson Stephens

  Jackson Stephens and the company Stephens Investments Holdings contributed $725,000 to super PACs through May 2012. Stephens is the son of the late Arkansas investor Jackson Stephens Sr., who was known as Mr. Republican of Arkansas during the 1980s and 1990s. Jackson Stephens Jr. sits on the board of the conservative Club for Growth. Stephens gave $725,000 to the Club for Growth's super PAC. (Pictured: The logo of Club for Growth, the prime recipient of Stephens' donations.) Note: Previously, a contribution from Stephens Investment Holdings was counted toward Stephens' total super PAC giving, but has now been attributed to his cousin Warren Stephens.

• Bernard Schwartz

  Bernard Schwartz, the millionaire industrialist and Democratic Party funder, gave $715,000 to super PACs through May 2012. Schwartz has funded dozens of Democratic Party initiaties and progressive and centrist organizations through the years, including the New America Foundation, the Progressive Policy Institute and Third Way. Schwartz gave $300,000 to Majority PAC, $210,000 to Economic Innovation Fund, $100,000 to House Majority PAC and $100,000 to Priorities USA Action (supporting President Obama).

• Jim DeMint

  Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), the conservative firebrand, contributed $700,000 from his campaign committee to the super PAC started by the Club for Growth. DeMint's initial contributions of $500,00 was the first large contribution by an elected official to a super PAC since the groups came into existence in the summer of 2010. The Club for Growth spends much of its money helping conservative Republican candidates win primary elections against other Republicans. DeMint's PAC, Senate Conservatives Fund, also spends large sums in Republican primary elections.

• Republican Governors Association

  The Republican Governors Association, a 527 political committee currently headed by Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, gave $680,000 to the super PAC RGA Ohio PAC.

• Laborers' International Union

  The Laborers' International Union, which represents a half-million construction workers, gave $605,000 to House Majority PAC through April 2012.

• Geoff Palmer & G.H. Palmer Associates

  Geoff Palmer and his California-based real estate company G.H. Palmer Associates contributed $600,000 to Restore Our Future (supporting Romney) through March 2012. (Pictured: Mitt Romney, the candidate supported by Palmer's contributions.)

• Friends Of Herman Cain

  Herman Cain's presidential campaign committee transferred $596,400 to a super PAC, Cain Connections, set up after he dropped out of the Republican primary race.

• Nancy And Reinier Beeuwkes

  Longtime Democratic Party donors Nancy and Reinier Beeuwkes gave $575,000 to super PACs through May 2012. Nancy Beeuwkes gave $250,000 to Women Vote!, $200,000 to American Bridge 21st Century, $100,000 to Priorities USA Action (supporting President Obama) and $25,000 to House Majority PAC. Reinier Beeuwkes gave $100,000 to Priorities USA Action. (Pictured: President Obama, the candidate supported by the Beeuwkes' contributions.)

• John Templeton

  John Templeton, a former doctor and son of the late billionaire stock investor Sir John Templeton, contributed $565,000 to super PACs through May 2012. Templeton gave $265,000 to Red White and Blue Fund (supporting Santorum), $200,000 to Raising Red and $100,000 to American Crossroads.

• The Waltons

  Jim, Alice and Christy Walton of the Walmart family combined to give $552,500 to super PACs through April 2012. All three rank in the top 10 of the <em>Forbes</em> list of the 400 richest Americans. Christy is ranked sixth with a net worth of $24.5 billion, Jim is ranked ninth with a net worth of $21.1 billion, and Alice is ranked 10th with a net worth of $20.9 billion. The Walton family gave $400,000 to Restore Our Future (supporting Mitt Romney), $150,000 to Our Destiny (supporting Jon Huntsman), and $2,500 to Real Street Conservatives PAC. (Pictured: Jim Walton and Alice Walton.)

• Richard Uihlein

  Richard Uihlein, the son of the founder of the U-Line Corp., contributed $535,000 to super PACs through May 2012. Uihlein gave $250,000 to FreedomWorks for America, $210,000 to Club for Growth, $50,000 to Liberty Principles PAC and $25,000 to New Prosperity Foundation. (Pictured: The website of FreedomWorks, the biggest recipient of contributions from Uihlein.)

• League Of American Voters

  The League of American Voters, a conservative nonprofit affiliated with consultant Dick Morris and Americans for Tax Reform, contributed $500,000 to Super PAC for America, a group controlled by Morris. The league's donors are not disclosed to the public.

• David And Ethelmae Humphreys

  David Humphreys, head of the Texas roofing company Tamko Building Products, and his mother, Ethelmae Humphreys, gave $525,000 to super PACs through April 2012. David Humphreys gave $500,000 to Restore Our Future (supporting Mitt Romney), and Ethelmae Humphreys gave $25,000 to the Club for Growth.

• Bruce Kovner

  Bruce Kovner, the billionaire director of the hedge fund Caxton Associates, contributed $500,000 to Restore Our Future (backing Romney). Kovner ranks 74 on the <em>Forbes</em> list of richest Americans, with a net worth of $4.3 billion.

• Louis Bacon

  Louis Bacon, the founder of hedge fund Moore Capital, gave $500,000 to Restore Our Future (supporting Romney). Bacon ranks 312 on the <em>Forbes</em> list of richest Americans, with a net worth of $1.4 billion. (Pictured: Mitt Romney, the candidate Bacon supports through his super PAC contributions.)

• Janet Duchossois

  Janet Duchossois, the wife of Duchossois Group chief Craig Duchossois, gave $500,000 to super PACs in the 2012 election cycle. She donated $250,000 to Restore Our Future (backing Romney) and $250,000 to American Crossroads.

• W.S. Propst

  W.S. Propst, an Alabama real estate developer, gave $500,000 to Winning Our Future (backing Gingrich). (Pictured: Newt Gingrich, the candidate Propst supports through his super PAC giving.)

• David Lisonbee

  David Lisonbee, the head of 4Life, a multi-level marketing company that sells health products, contributed $500,000 to Restore Our Future (supporting Romney).

• S.W. Childs Management

  The investment advisory company S.W. Childs Management contributed $500,000 to Restore Our Future (backing Romney). (Pictured: Mitt Romney, the candidate supported by S.W. Childs Management's contribution.)

• Susan Gore

  Susan Gore, the daughter of the founder of manufacturing company W.L. Gore & Associates, gave $500,000 to Red White And Blue Fund (supporting Santorum) through March 2012. (Pictured: Rick Santorum, the candidate supported by Gore's contributions.)

• Corporate Land Management Inc.

  Corporate Land Management Inc., an obscure corporation listed in Dallas, Texas, contributed $500,000 to the Campaign for American Values, a little-known super PAC, through March 2012.

• Kevin And Debra Rollins

  Kevin and Debra Rollins combined to give $500,000 to Restore Our Future (supporting Mitt Romney) through April 2012. Kevin Rollins is the head of TPA Private Equity, located in Massachusetts, and previously led the computer manufacturer Dell and worked with Romney at Bain Capital.

• Stephen Zide

  Stephen Zide, the current managing director of Bain Capital, has given $500,000 to Restore Our Future, the super PAC supporting Mitt Romney's presidential bid. Zide's $250,000 contribution in April pushed him into the category of $500,000-plus donors.

Also on HuffPost: