From: AP

The U.S. Justice Department sued Sheriff Joe Arpaio on Thursday, saying the Arizona lawman refused for more than a year to turn over records in an investigation into allegations his department discriminates against Hispanics.
The lawsuit calls Arpaio and his office’s defiance “unprecedented,” and said the federal government has been trying since March 2009 to get officials to comply with its probe of alleged discrimination, unconstitutional searches and seizures, and having English-only policies in his jails that discriminates against people with limited English skills.
Arpaio had been given until Aug. 17 to hand over documents it first asked for 15 months ago.
Arpaio’s attorney, Robert Driscoll, declined immediate comment on the lawsuit, saying he had just received it and hadn’t yet conferred with his client.
Arpaio’s office had said it has fully cooperated in the jail inquiry but won’t hand over additional documents into the examination of the alleged unconstitutional searches because federal authorities haven’t said exactly what they were investigating.
It’s the latest action against Arizona by the federal government, which earlier sued the state to stop its strict new immigration law that requires police officers to question people about their immigration status.
“The actions of the sheriff’s office are unprecedented,” said Thomas Perez, assistant attorney general for the department’s civil rights division. “It is unfortunate that the department was forced to resort to litigation to gain access to public documents and facilities.”
The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Phoenix and names Arpaio, the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office and the county.
Arizona’s new law — most of which a federal judge has put on hold — mirrors many of the policies Arpaio has put into place in the greater Phoenix area, where he set up a hot line for the public to report immigration violations, conducts crime and immigration sweeps in heavily Latino neighborhoods and frequently raids workplaces for people in the U.S. illegally.
Arpaio believes the inquiry is focused on his immigration sweeps, patrols where deputies flood an area of a city — in some cases heavily Latino areas — to seek out traffic violators and arrest other offenders.
Critics say his deputies pull people over for minor traffic infractions because of the color of their skin so they can ask them for their proof of citizenship.
Arpaio denies allegations of racial profiling, saying people are stopped if deputies have probable cause to believe they’ve committed crimes and that it’s only afterward that deputies find many of them are illegal immigrants.
The sheriff’s office has said half of the 1,032 people arrested in the sweeps have been illegal immigrants.
Last year, the federal government stripped Arpaio of his special power to enforce federal immigration law. The sheriff continued his sweeps through the enforcement of state immigration laws.
Last year, the nearly $113 million that the county received from the federal government accounted for about 5 percent of the county’s $2 billion budget. Arpaio’s office said it receives $3 million to $4 million each year in federal funds.
In a separate investigation, a federal grand jury in Phoenix is examining allegations that Arpaio has abused his powers with actions such as intimidating county workers by showing up at their homes at nights and on weekends.

Popularity: 2% [?]

From: EL Paso TImes

We continue to be a safe U.S. city, but we’re fooling ourselves if we think the narco violence in Juárez has not negatively affected our way of life.
“Spillover” is the correct word, a bulls-eye definition of what’s going on. But it should be looked at in more ways than stray bullets hitting El Paso buildings in the immediate border vicinity.
More to the point, the ongoing war to control this sector’s drug route is affecting us economically and socially — and that’s “spillover.”
We rely on trade with Mexico to fuel our economy. It’s second only to the money generated here by Fort Bliss. We have family and friends who live in Juárez.
Economically: There are two main negative affects the narco war has on trade and business.
Cargo moves slower due to tighter security measures — drugs and contraband coming this way, and weapons and cash from drug sales going into Mexico. Our international bridges are clogged. Wait times can last hours.
Fewer Juarenses are walking into El Paso to shop at our stores. Data bear that out at both Downtown pedestrian bridges. That means a loss in profits to business owners, fewer dollars in sales tax revenue, and fewer dollars in bridge tolls.
Socially: Until 9/11, El Paso/Juárez had essentially an open border. From the 1800s to Sept. 11, 2001, it took little more than a nod to cross into either country. El Pasoans have always had family and friends living in Juárez and the Juárez Valley. Now U.S. citizens are afraid to
Advertisement

travel into Juárez, even to visit family and friends. Those traveling to Juárez for the restaurant or night life have found scores of restaurants and nightclubs shuttered and out of business.
We have effectively been cut off from our family and friends, and the social amenities once provided in Juárez. This is not to downplay the seriousness and danger when bullets, believed-to-be from Juárez shootouts, strike El Paso buildings. City Hall was hit in late June. And a bullet hit a building on the campus of the University of Texas at El Paso on the night Aug. 21. Both incidents were believed to be at the time of gunfire activity just across the border.
Others report bullets having hit other El Paso structures during the narco war. People in parts of El Paso have watched gun battles as they happen.
This can be terrifying, especially when one is in that area of El Paso/Juárez.
But let’s comprehend, too, that “spillover” comes in other forms. The Juárez drug war is negatively affecting our businesses and our century-old familial way of life with the persons we love and know who live on the other side of the border.

Popularity: 2% [?]

From: Fast Company

American Apparel, the risqué-advertised and hipster-chic clothing retailer, is struggling to lift itself out of the financial dumps. The company’s debt has risen to $120.3 million, up more than 33% since March. Share prices have plummeted to an all-time low of 66 cents after consecutive days of 20% or higher drops. It missed its recent 10-Q filing and received a letter from the NYSE that threatened their de-listing. But neither American Apparel’s financials nor nasty reports of sexist hiring practices are to blame, says founder and CEO Dov Charney and a company spokesperson.
The problem here is immigration reform.
In a weekly conference call today with international stores and corporate heads, the AA chief blamed a lack of immigration reform and media misunderstandings for the company’s woes. According to a source listening to the call, Charney disputed reports that the company is nearing bankruptcy and out of cash. Rather, he said, one of the core issues is AA’s employment troubles. “The real core issue is we lost 2,500 people,” Charney said, referring to what American Apparel attorney and spokesman Peter Schey calls a “routine” 18-month investigation and early 2010 immigration and customs enforcement action that resulted in the loss of workers, many of whom didn’t have proper immigration documents. (Schey tells Fast Company the number of employees shed after the enforcement action was more like 1,500.)
Charney, who’s long been as passionate about hiring immigrants at fair wages as he is about nubile hipster girls in boy briefs, told employees today that their replacements should have been trained sooner, but since they weren’t, production suffered and store inventory wasn’t being replenished. Our source characterized his mood about past and present presidential presidents’ immigration policies as “bitter.” It’s an explanation he’s used as far back as June of this year.
Spokesman Schey echoed that sentiment, faulting the Obama Administration for targeting a company that was paying its employees (none of whom the company knew were undocumented, Schey adds) living wages. “In my view it was a complete waste of time,” Schey says of the worker inspection. “By the way, those workers did not leave the United States,” when they were either fired or resigned, Schey tells Fast Company. “Those workers were literally pushed by the Obama Administration into the arms of sweatshop employers. I stayed in touch with many of them, and the next stop for them was at a sweatshop.”
Additionally Charney–and Schey–did acknowledge that retail sales were down, though many stores outside the United States are thriving, but Charney added that wholesale and online sales are up, and wholesale makes up at least half of the company.
Schey denies that recent reports about image requirements for AA employees have had an impact. “I’m definitely in the loop on all of that,” he says, adding later, “I think the notion that Gawker and a few of the blogs have pressed the idea that every new employee has to be photographed so Dov can personally approve them is absolute nonsense. He doesn’t have the time to do that, and he doesn’t have the interest in doing that. If he did, he would need a new pair of glasses.”
Schey adds, “All you’d have to do is walk into American Apparel stores, and you’d be hard pressed to find people who’d win any beauty contests.” Asked to clarify, he said, “How could I put that simply? You could walk into any American Apparel store and hopefully appreciate that people … that retail … what do you call them–salespeople are hired based upon their ability to sell the brand or their ability to identify with and sell the brand and certainly not based on their looks.”
Our source could not determine if at any point during Charney’s conference call today he pleasured himself.

Popularity: 6% [?]

From: Hispanic News

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 — President Obama’s $787 billion stimulus — has been marketed as a jobs bill, and that’s how it’s been judged.
The White House says it has saved or created about 3 million jobs, helping avoid a depression and end a recession. Republicans mock it as a Big Government boondoggle that has failed to prevent rampant unemployment despite a massive expansion of the deficit. Liberals complain it wasn’t massive enough.

It’s an interesting debate. Politically, it’s awkward to argue things would have been even worse without the stimulus, even though that’s what most nonpartisan economists believe. But the battle over the Recovery Act’s short-term rescue has obscured its more enduring mission: a long-term push to change the country. It was about jobs, sure, but also about fighting oil addiction and global warming, transforming health care and education, and building a competitive 21st century economy. Some Republicans have called it an under-the-radar scramble to advance Obama’s agenda — and they’ve got a point.

Yes, the stimulus has cut taxes for 95% of working Americans, bailed out every state, hustled record amounts of unemployment benefits and other aid to struggling families and funded more than 100,000 projects to upgrade roads, subways, schools, airports, military bases and much more. But in the words of Vice President Joe Biden, Obama’s effusive Recovery Act point man, “Now the fun stuff starts!” The “fun stuff,” about one-sixth of the total cost, is an all-out effort to exploit the crisis to make green energy, green building and green transportation real; launch green manufacturing industries; computerize a pen-and-paper health system; promote data-driven school reforms; and ramp up the research of the future. “This is a chance to do something big, man!” Biden said during a 90-minute interview with TIME.

For starters, the Recovery Act is the most ambitious energy legislation in history, converting the Energy Department into the world’s largest venture-capital fund. It’s pouring $90 billion into clean energy, including unprecedented investments in a smart grid; energy efficiency; electric cars; renewable power from the sun, wind and earth; cleaner coal; advanced biofuels; and factories to manufacture green stuff in the U.S. The act will also triple the number of smart electric meters in our homes, quadruple the number of hybrids in the federal auto fleet and finance far-out energy research through a new government incubator modeled after the Pentagon agency that fathered the Internet.

The only stimulus energy program that’s gotten much attention so far — chiefly because it got off to a slow start — is a $5 billion effort to weatherize homes. But the Recovery Act’s line items represent the first steps to a low-carbon economy. “It will leverage a very different energy future,” says Kristin Mayes, the Republican chair of Arizona’s utility commission. “It really moves us toward a tipping point.”

The stimulus is also stocked with non-energy game changers, like a tenfold increase in funding to expand access to broadband and an effort to sequence more than 2,300 complete human genomes — when only 34 were sequenced with all previous aid. There’s $8 billion for a high-speed passenger rail network, the boldest federal transportation initiative since the interstate highways. There’s $4.35 billion in Race to the Top grants to promote accountability in public schools, perhaps the most significant federal education initiative ever — it’s already prompted 35 states and the District of Columbia to adopt reforms to qualify for the cash. There’s $20 billion to move health records into the digital age, which should reduce redundant tests, dangerous drug interactions and errors caused by doctors with chicken-scratch handwriting. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius calls that initiative the foundation for Obama’s health care reform and “maybe the single biggest component in improving quality and lowering costs.”

Any of those programs would have been a revolution in its own right. “We’ve seen more reform in the last year than we’ve seen in decades, and we haven’t spent a dime yet,” says Education Secretary Arne Duncan. “It’s staggering how the Recovery Act is driving change.”

That was the point. Critics have complained while the New Deal left behind iconic monuments — courthouses, parks, the Lincoln Tunnel, the Grand Coulee Dam — this New New Deal will leave a mundane legacy of sewage plants, repaved roads, bus repairs and caulked windows. In fact, it will create new icons too: solar arrays, zero-energy border stations, an eco-friendly Coast Guard headquarters, an “advanced synchrotron light source” in a New York lab. But its main legacy will be change. The stimulus passed just a month after Obama’s inauguration, but it may be his signature effort to reshape America — as well as its government.

“Let’s Just Go Build It!”

After Obama’s election, Depression scholar Christina Romer delivered a freak-out briefing to his transition team, warning to avoid a 1930s-style collapse, Washington needed to pump at least $800 billion into the frozen economy — and fast. “We were in a tailspin,” recalls Romer, who is about to step down as chair of Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers. “I was completely sympathetic to the idea we shouldn’t just dig ditches and fill them in. But saving the economy had to be paramount.” Obama’s economists argued for tax cuts and income transfers to get cash circulating quickly, emergency aid to states to prevent layoffs of cops and teachers and off-the-shelf highway projects to put people to work. They wanted a textbook Keynesian response to an economy in cardiac arrest: adding money to existing programs via existing formulas or handing it to governors, seniors and first-time home buyers. They weren’t keen to reinvent the wheel.

But Obama and Biden also saw a golden opportunity to address priorities; they emphasized shovel-worthy as well as shovel-ready. Biden recalls brainstorming with Obama about an all-in push for a smarter electrical grid that would reduce blackouts, promote re-newables and give families more control over their energy diet: “We said, ‘God, wouldn’t it be wonderful? Why don’t we invest $100 billion? Let’s just go build it!’ ”

It wasn’t that easy. Utilities control the grid, and new wires create thorny not-in-my-backyard zoning issues; there wasn’t $100 billion worth of remotely shovel-ready grid projects. It’s hard to transform on a timeline, and some congressional Democrats were less interested in transforming government than growing it. For instance, after securing $100 billion for traditional education programs, House Appropriations Committee chairman Dave Obey tried to stop any of it from going to Race to the Top, which is unpopular with teachers’ unions.

Ultimately, even Obama’s speed focused economists agreed stimulus spending shouldn’t dry up in 2010. And some Democrats were serious about investing wisely, not just spending more. So House Speaker Nancy Pelosi insisted on $17 billion for research. House Education and Labor Committee chairman George Miller fought to save Race to the Top. And while the grid didn’t get a $100 billion reinvention, it did get $11 billion after decades of neglect, which could shape trillions of dollars in future utility investments.

It takes time to set up new programs, but now money is flowing to deliver high-speed Internet to rural areas, spread successful quit-smoking programs and design the first high-speed rail link from Tampa to Orlando. And deep in the Energy Department’s basement — in a room dubbed the dungeon — a former McKinsey & Co. partner named Matt Rogers has created a government version of Silicon Valley’s Sand Hill Road, blasting billions of dollars into clean-energy projects through a slew of oversubscribed grant programs. “The idea is to transform the entire energy sector,” Rogers says. “What’s exciting is the way it fits all together.”

“They Won’t All Succeed”

The green industrial revolution begins with gee-whiz companies like A123 Systems of Watertown, Mass. Founded in 2001 by MIT nanotechnology geeks who landed a $100,000 federal grant, A123 grew into a global player in the lithium-ion battery market, with 1,800 employees and five factories in China. It has won $249 million to build two plants in Michigan, where it will help supply the first generation of mass-market electric cars. At least four of A123’s suppliers received stimulus money too. The Administration is also financing three of the world’s first electric-car plants, including a $529 million loan to help Fisker Automotive reopen a shuttered General Motors factory in Delaware to build sedans powered by A123 batteries. Another A123 customer, Navistar, got cash to build electric trucks in Indiana. And since electric vehicles need juice, the stimulus will also boost the number of U.S. battery-charging stations by 3,200%.

“Without government, there’s no way we would’ve done this in the U.S.,” A123 chief technology officer Bart Riley told TIME. “But now you’re going to see the industry reach critical mass here.”

The Recovery Act’s clean-energy push is designed not only to reduce our old economy dependence on fossil fuels that broil the planet, blacken the Gulf and strengthen foreign petro-thugs but also to avoid replacing it with a new economy that is just as dependent on foreign countries for technology and manufacturing. Last year, exactly two U.S. factories made advanced batteries for electric vehicles. The stimulus will create 30 new ones, expanding U.S. production capacity from 1% of the global market to 20%, supporting half a million plug-ins and hybrids. The idea is as old as land-grant colleges: to use tax dollars as an engine of innovation. It rejects free-market purism but also the old industrial-policy approach of dumping cash into a few favored firms. Instead, the Recovery Act floods the zone, targeting a variety of energy problems and providing seed money for firms with a variety of potential solutions. The winners must attract private capital to match public dollars — A123 held an IPO to raise the required cash — and after competing for grants, they still must compete in the marketplace. “They won’t all succeed,” Rogers says. “But some will, and they’ll change the world.”

The investments extend all along the food chain. A brave new world of electric cars powered by coal plants could be dirtier than the oil-soaked status quo, so the stimulus includes an unheard-of $3.4 billion for clean-coal projects aiming to sequester or reuse carbon. There are also lucrative loan guarantees for constructing the first American nuclear plants in three decades. And after the credit crunch froze financing for green energy, stimulus cash has fueled a comeback, putting the U.S. on track to exceed Obama’s goal of doubling renewable power by 2012. The wind industry added a record 10,000 megawatts in 2009. The stimulus is also supporting the nation’s largest photovoltaic solar plant, in Florida, and what will be the world’s two largest solar thermal plants, in Arizona and California, plus thousands of solar installations on homes and buildings.

The stimulus is helping scores of manufacturers of wind turbines and solar products expand as well, but today’s grid can only handle so much wind and solar. A key problem is connecting remote wind farms to population centers, so there are billions of dollars for new transmission lines. Then there is the need to find storage capacity for when it isn’t windy or sunny outside. The current grid is like a phone system without voice mail, a just-in-time network where power is wasted if it doesn’t reach a user the moment it’s generated. That’s why the Recovery Act is funding dozens of smart-grid approaches. For instance, A123 is providing truckloads of batteries for a grid-storage project in California and recycled electric-car batteries for a similar effort in Detroit. “If we can show the utilities this stuff works,” says Riley, “it will take off on its own.”

Today, grid-scale storage, solar energy and many other green technologies are too costly to compete without subsidies. That’s why the stimulus launched the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E), a blue-sky fund inspired by the Pentagon’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the incubator for GPS and the M-16 rifle as well as the Internet. Located in an office building a block from the rest of the Energy Department, ARPA-E will finance energy research too risky for private funders, focusing on speculative technologies that might dramatically cut the cost of, say, carbon capture — or not. “We’re taking chances, because that’s how you put a man on the moon,” says director Arun Majumdar, a materials scientist from the University of California, Berkeley. “Our idea is it’s O.K. to fail. You think America’s pioneers never failed?”

ARPA-E is funding the new pioneers — mad scientists and engineers with ideas for wind turbines based on jet engines, bacteria to convert carbon dioxide into gasoline, and tiny molten-metal batteries to provide cheap high-voltage storage. That last idea is the brainchild of MIT’s Donald Sadoway, who already has a prototype fuel cell the size of a shot glass. The stimulus will help him create a kind of reverse aluminum smelter to make prototypes the size of a hockey puck and a pizza box. The ultimate goal is a commercial scale battery the size of a tractor trailer that could power an entire neighborhood. “We need radical breakthroughs, so we need radical experiments,” Sadoway says. “These projects send chills down the spine of the carbon world. If a few of them work, Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez and Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are out of power.”

Then again, the easiest way to blow up the energy world would be to stop wasting so much. That’s the final link in the chain, a full-throttle push to make energy efficiency a national norm. The Recovery Act is weatherizing 250,000 homes this year. It gave homeowners rebates for energy-efficient appliances, much as the Cash for Clunkers program subsidized fuel-efficient cars. It’s retrofitting juice-sucking server farms, factories and power plants; financing research into super efficient lighting, windows and machinery; and funneling billions into state and local efficiency efforts.

It will also retrofit 3 in 4 federal buildings. The U.S. government is the nation’s largest energy consumer, so this will save big money while boosting demand for geothermal heat pumps, LED lighting and other energy-saving products. “We’re so huge, we make markets,” says Bob Peck, the General Services Administration’s public-buildings commissioner. GSA’s 93-year-old headquarters, now featuring clunky window air conditioners and wires duct-taped to ceilings, will get energy optimized heating, cooling and lighting systems, glass facades with solar membranes and a green roof; the makeover should cut its energy use 55%. It might even beta-test stimulus-funded windows that harvest sunlight. “We’ll be the proving ground for innovation in the building industry,” Peck says. “It all starts with renovating the government.”

The New Venture Capitalists

The stimulus really is starting to change Washington — and not just the buildings. Every contract and lobbying contact is posted at Recovery.gov, with quarterly data detailing where the money went. A Recovery Board was created to scrutinize every dollar, with help from every major agency’s independent watchdog. And Biden has promised state and local officials answers to all stimulus questions within 24 hours. It’s a test-drive for a new approach to government: more transparent, more focused on results than compliance, not just bigger but better. Biden himself always saw the Recovery Act as a test — not only of the new Administration but of federal spending itself. He knew high-profile screw ups could be fatal, stoking antigovernment anger about bureaucrats and two-car funerals. So he spends hours checking in, buttering up and banging heads to keep the stimulus on track, harassing Cabinet secretaries, governors and mayors about unspent broadband funds, weatherization delays and fishy projects. He has blocked some 260 skate parks, picnic tables and highway beautifications that flunked his what-would-your-mom-think test. “Imagine they could have proved we wasted a billion dollars,” Biden says. “Gone, man. Gone!”

So far, despite furor over cash it supposedly funneled to contraception deleted from the bill and phantom congressional districts (simply typos), the earmark-free Recovery Act has produced surprisingly few scandals. Prosecutors are investigating a few fraud allegations, and critics have found some goofy expenditures, like $51,500 for water-safety-mascot costumes or a $50,000 arts grant to a kinky-film house. But those are minor warts, given unprecedented scrutiny. Biden knows it’s early — “I ain’t saying mission accomplished!” — but he calls waste and fraud “the dogs that haven’t barked.”

The Recovery Act’s deeper reform has been its focus on intense competition for grants instead of everybody-wins formulas, forcing public officials to consider not only whether applicants have submitted the required traffic studies and small-business hiring plans but also whether their projects make sense. Already staffed by top technologists from MIT, Duke and Intel, ARPA-E recruited 4,500 outside experts to winnow 3,700 applications down to 37 first-round grants. “We’ve taken the best and brightest from the tech world and created a venture fund — except we’re looking for returns for the country,” Majumdar says. These change agents didn’t uproot their lives to fill out forms in triplicate and shovel money by formula. They want to reinvent the economy, not just stimulate it. Sadoway, the MIT battery scientist, is tired of reporting how many jobs he’s created in his lab: “If this works, I’ll create a million jobs!”

Obama has spent most of his first term trying to clean up messes — in the Gulf of Mexico, Iraq and Afghanistan, on Wall Street and Main Street — but the details in the stimulus plan are his real down payment on change. The question is which changes will last. Will electric cars disappear after the subsidies disappear? Will advanced battery factories migrate back to China? Will bullet trains ever get built? The President wants to extend transformative programs like ARPA-E. But would they be substitutes for the status quo or just additions to tack onto the deficit? And would they survive a Republican Congress?

Polls suggest the actual contents of the Recovery Act are popular. But the idea of the stimulus itself remains toxic — and probably will as long as the recovery remains tepid. “Today, it’s judged by jobs,” Rogers says of the act. “But in 10 years, it’ll be judged by whether it transformed our economy.”

Popularity: 3% [?]

From: LA Times

It’s not exactly earth-shaking news that immigration is among the key themes of this year’s 14th annual Los Angeles Latino International Film Festival.

What may surprise viewers is how multi-faceted that subject can be, beyond vitriolic debates about Arizona statutes, border fences and boycotts.

Edward James Olmos, chairman and co-founder of the festival, one of the nation’s oldest and largest of its kind, says many of this year’s films explore the two-way nature of immigration as a global phenomenon, an exchange that affects both those who move and those who encounter the new arrivals.

“This is an issue that will touch everyone’s lives,” said the actor, known for his performances in “Blade Runner,” “Battlestar Galactica” and “Stand and Deliver.” “This is something that’s not happening only in the United States, it’s happening across the planet as people are moving from Point A to Point B in order to stay alive.”

To illustrate that idea, organizers point to the large, varied lineup of immigration-related films in the festival, which was scheduled to open Thursday night and run through Wednesday at the Mann Chinese 6 Cinemas, the Egyptian Theatre and other Hollywood venues. The Los Angeles Times and its Spanish-language sister publication, Hoy, are the festival’s premiere sponsors.

The festival’s closing-night offering, Carlos Carrera’s feature film “Backyard,” stars Mexican actress Ana de la Reguera ( Jack Black’s largely unrequited love interest in “Nacho Libre”) in a tale set in the gruesomely violent border city of Ciudad Juarez, where thousands of women have been killed or have disappeared in recent years. Many of the victims have been poor migrant workers in the maquiladora border factories.

In Sarah Vaill’s documentary, “Women With Altitude,” seven female abuse-survivors from San Francisco cross cultural borders with indigenous women while scaling the hazardous Bolivian Andes. Vaill said she wanted her movie to show how women of very different ethnic and cultural backgrounds can reach across boundaries to unite in common cause. “We really aspired not to just make a personal-catharsis story,” she said. “We wanted to make it connect with the issues.”

The idea of immigration as a kind of private existential crisis emerges in Miguel Coyula’s feature film “Memories of Overdevelopment.” Based on a novel by the émigré Cuban writer Edmundo Desnoes and screened at last winter’s Sundance Film Festival, it considers immigration as a state of internal self-exile, in the case of a Cuban intellectual who’s unable to fit into either a socialistic or capitalistic world.

Speaking by phone, the 33-year-old, Havana-bred director said he was interested in “examining the alienation of the individual in the 21st century,” an era that he believes has witnessed “the death of ideologies.”

“We don’t trust politicians whether they are of the right or of the left,” Coyula said, speaking of his generation, both in Cuba and elsewhere. “We were told as kids that the world would be utopia, and then when it didn’t happen we were very skeptical about everything.”

Although the U.S. immigration debate has seldom been more heated than at present, the matrix of issues surrounding it has been around for decades. That reminder comes through in “Harvest of Loneliness” by Gilbert Gonzalez and Vivian Price, which examines the Bracero Program that brought several million mainly Mexican migrants to the United States to work as cheap, temporary laborers between 1942 and 1964. It’s also a subtext of Abby Ginzberg’s “Cruz Reynoso: Sowing the Seeds of Justice,” which profiles the son of migrant farm workers who became the first Chicano attorney to serve on the California Supreme Court.

Auxiliary festival programming will include a dialogue Tuesday on immigration issues, co-presented by UCLA’s Latin American Institute.

Need a breather from the discussion? Olmos recommends the upbeat boxing drama “Chamaco,” with Martin Sheen, and a documentary about the beloved Spanglish-speaking comic Tin Tan, among other films.

“It’s always about trying to get the information out about what’s happening and make it entertaining,” Olmos said, “because it is the entertainment business, it’s not the social-irrelevant business.”

Popularity: 2% [?]

From: Poder 360

The last few years have been dreadful for both franchisors and franchisees: reduced sales and plugged credit lines have put a damper on the industry as a whole. Yet if you survived the recession unscathed and believe the worst is behind us, there are a number of appetizing prospects still out there.

PODER’s annual list of the Top Franchises for Hispanic entrepreneurs comes at a time of great distress and uncertainty, but also of potential promise for future franchisees. As in the past, we selected companies that operate profitable businesses while also demonstrating an exceptional level of Latino participation and support for the Hispanic community. We developed the list based in part on a rigorous analysis of several factors, including historical performance, brand identification, franchisee satisfaction, training, ongoing support and financial stability.

Equally important determinants, however, were the percentage and number of Hispanics who either own their own franchise or manage company-owned units; the overall minority representation within the system; and the percentage and number of Hispanics who make up top management (defined as an annual salary in excess of $60,000).

Unfortunately, there is no magic bullet for selecting what might be the best franchise for a prospective franchisee, since factors such as a brand’s market penetration in a given region or demographics in a certain market can ultimately tilt the scale in different directions. This list also does not include companies that did not respond to our survey.

You will note that there are several commonalities in the list. For instance, there are 15 franchises in the service sector, including eight in the janitorial or maid service industry. Contrary to what one might assume, there are only seven food companies on the list. All but three of the companies listed are members of the International Franchise Association, and just five have been franchising for less than 13 years, a strong testament to their long-term success.

It is also important to highlight that eight of the companies have a total investment of less than $60,000 (less than the industry average), and more than half the companies listed have franchise fees of less than $30,000, with many dipping below $20,000.

Newcomers to the list include El Pollo Loco, Fiesta Auto Insurance, Pizza Patrón, Pronto Insurance, Stratus Building Solutions and VR Business Brokers.

[Do Your Research]

While the list below is a great start, it is only that. Your final selection should be a reflection of your strengths and weaknesses, your life experiences and your financial resources. It is absolutely imperative that you do a thorough inventory of your capabilities before proceeding. If you lack the necessary liquidity, the managerial experience needed to properly run a business, or don’t have the chemical make-up to be your own boss, then franchising might not be an investment you should make.

Keep in mind that the penalties for failure in a franchise are both severe and long-term. You may be personally liable for outstanding bank loans, equipment loans or a long-term lease.

The investment process should take three to six months and should not be hurried because of outside pressure from either family members or, more especially, from franchisors who want to sign you up before you are ready. Keep in mind that there are over 3,000 North American franchise systems, many of which offer similar products and services, but which might differ in terms of the franchise fee, ongoing royalty payments and long-term support.

The two most important aspects of your due diligence are: 1) contacting enough existing and former franchisees to ensure that you feel comfortable with the level of support and commitment you will receive from the franchisor, and 2) doing a realistic and detailed cash flow statement so that you have a good sense of whether your franchise will generate the funds needed to justify the investment.

[Comparing Finances]

Fewer than 35 percent of franchisors provide historical sales, expenses and profits of existing franchisees (or company-owned stores). Because there are no industry-wide statistics on average earnings, prospective franchisees should take the time, possibly with the help of experienced attorneys or consultants, to come up with a realistic financial road map of the future. Make sure to take into account the period during which the business will undoubtedly sustain a negative cash flow in order to have adequate working capital to weather the storm.

The companies listed in PODER’s Top 26 require a total investment between $1,000 and $14.6 million. The earnings, or salary, franchisees can expect to make vary widely depending on the business model they choose. It is almost impossible to compare a mutli-million dollar investment for a hotel against the minimal start-up costs of running a maid service franchise. For most investors, the real payoff comes after they sell the business in 10 or 15 years at a multiple of earnings.

In terms of your timing with regard to buying a franchise, now might be a great time to start the investigative process. Most in the industry would agree that the past two years have been devastating for the franchising community. From the franchisee’s perspective, both the bank and SBA loans necessary to start a business have been impossible to secure, and the overall sales picture has been very negative.

From the franchisor’s point of view, their fortunes were severely undermined over the past two years as well. A franchisor’s financial success is determined by franchise royalties and franchise fees, which are collected from franchisees when they sign up (generally $15,000-$30,000). No new franchises, no fees collected. Franchisee royalties are the percentage of sales (from 3 to 6 percent) paid by the franchisee to the franchisor for being part of their “system.” With the economy in the doldrums, the average franchisee’s sales were down 15 percent on average, which translates to a 15 percent reduction in funds flowing to the franchisor.

Because of the compounding effect of reduced cash flows, many franchisors have been forced to lay off key personnel. The good news is that many also reduced their franchise fees to attract new candidates.

Notwithstanding the above stumbling blocks of the past two years, the economy in general and the franchising industry in particular are gradually improving. To the extent that you take your time doing your research and due diligence, you should be in good shape to receive the funding you need.

PODER’s Top 26 Franchisies for Hispanics:
7-Eleven
Total Units: 37,039
Total Investment: Varies by store
Franchise Fee: Varies by Store
Franchise Royalty: Gross Profit Split
Employees Needed: 13
Projected New Units Next 12 Months: 400
Who They Are: This pioneer of the convenience store industry has become a household name through its omnipresence.

BONUS Building Care
Total Units: 2,615
Total Investment: $9,000-$41,900
Franchise Fee: $7,500
Franchise Royalty: 10 percent
Employees Needed: Varies by store
Projected New Units Next 12 Months: 100
Who They Are: Commercial cleaning franchisor that offers customers, training, insurance, financing, clerical and procedural assistance as well as expansion opportunities.

Choice Hotels International
Total Units: 6,032
Total Investment: $2.3 million-$14.6million
Franchise Fee: $10,000-$60,000
Franchise Royalty: 4.25-5.65 percent
Employees Needed: Varies by store
Projected New Units Next 12 Months:
No data available
Who They Are: Choice Hotels is a leading hotel franchisor with 65 years experience developing brands such as Comfort Inn, Comfort Suites, Clarion, Extended Stay Hotel and Econo Lodge.

Church’s Chicken
Total Franchised Units: 1,412
Total Investment: $154,300-$833,100
Franchise Fee: $25,000
Franchise Royalty: 5 percent
Employees Needed: 21
Projected New Units Next 12 Months: 120
Who They Are: Founded in San Antonio, Church’s Chicken is a recognized brand and one of the largest quick-service chicken restaurants in the world. As of April 2010, the franchisor had more than 1,650 locations in 23 countries with sales exceeding $1 billion.

Coverall Health-Based Cleaning System
Total Units: 9,469
Total Investment: $10,612-$37,585
Franchise Fee: $10,000-$32,000
Franchise Royalty: 5 percent
Employees Needed: 3-5
Projected New Units Next 12 Months:1,257
Who They Are: A commercial cleaning franchise offering comprehensive training, equipment, billing and collection, and an initial customer base for a $2,000 down payment.

Denny’s
Total Units: 1323
Total Investment: $1.2-$2.4 million
Franchise Fee: $40,000
Franchise Royalty: 4 percent
Employees Needed: 75
Projected New Units Next 12 Months: 37
Who They Are: Denny’s has been a leader in family dining for more than 50 years. Globally it serves 26 million customers a month in 1,500 restaurants worldwide.

El Pollo Loco
Total Units: 241
Total Investment: $502,00-$1.1million
Franchise Fee: $40,000
Franchise Royalty: 4 percent
Employees Needed: 25
Projected New Units Next 12 Months: 5
Who They Are: One of the largest quick-service restaurant chains specializing in flame-grilled chicken. Markets its menu as a healthy alternative to traditional fast food.

Express Emplyment Professionals
Total Units: 592
Total Investment: $153,750-$242,500
Franchise Fee: $35,000
Franchise Royalty: 8-9 percent
Employees Needed: 3
Projected New Units Next 12 Months: 50
Who They Are: Express franchises offer a range of business-to-business staffing and human resource services. For established business owners, Express provides opportunities to grow your business through advanced service offerings.

Famous Famiglia
Total Units: 106
Total Investment: $250,000-$700,000
Franchise Fee: $35,000
Franchise Royalty: 6 percent
Employees Needed: 12
Projected New Units Next 12 Months: 32
Who They Are: An award-winning pizza brand, operating worldwide, in high volume markets such as leading airports, shopping plazas, universities, casinos and military bases.

Fantastic Sams
Total Units: 1,278
Total Investment: $115,000 – $228,600
Franchise Fee: $25,000 – $35,000
Franchise Royalty: Varies by store
Employees Needed: 8
Projected New Units Next 12 Months: 50
Who They Are: This full-service hair care franchise offers new store owners management training, educational programs and advertising benefits. No previous experience required.

Fast-Fix Jewelry
and Watch Repairs
Total Units: 153
Total Investment: $142,750-$307,750
Franchise Fee: $40,000
Franchise Royalty: 5 percent
Employees Needed: 5
Projected New Units Next 12 Months: 15
Who They Are: A jewelry and watch repair chain operating in major malls in the United States and Canada. Offers training and regional marketing meetings.

Fastsigns
Total Units: 531
Total Investment: $145,600
Franchise Fee: $27,500
Franchise Royalty: 8 percent
Employees Needed: 2-3
Projected New Units Next 12 Months: 22
Who They Are: FASTSIGNS creates custom signs, graphics and banners, and has a store network in six countries. Average per store gross sales in 2008 were $612,000.

Fiesta Auto Insurance and Tax Service
Total Units: 57
Total Investment: $35,000-$55,000
Franchise Fee: $10,000
Franchise Royalty: 10-25 percent
Employees Needed: 2
Projected New Units Next 12 Months: 60
Who They Are: This insurance and tax preparation business attracts a diversified clientele with 50 types of insurance programs, as well as travel, money transfer, motor vehicle registrations and real estate services.

Jani-King International
Total Units: 13,000
Total Investment: $2,900-$40,000
Franchise Fee: $8,000-$33,000
Franchise Royalty: 10 percent
Employees Needed: 0
Projected New Units Next 12 Months:1,500
Who They Are: With franchisees in more than 19 countries, Jani-King is the world’s largest commercial cleaning franchisor. Uses environmentally preferable products and special chemical dispensing systems.

Jan-Pro
Cleaning Systems
Total Units: 10,240
Total Investment: $5,000-$60,000
Franchise Fee: $1,000-$30,000
Franchise Royalty: 14 percent
Employees Needed: 0
Projected New Units Next 12 Months: 12 masters and over 2,000 units
Who They Are: Part of the fast-growing commercial cleaning industry, Jan-Pro provides guidance and support to new franchisees.

KFC
Total Units: 4,287
Total Investment: $1.2 million - $1.7million
Franchise Fee: $25,000
Franchise Royalty: 4 percent
Employees Needed: 24
Projected New Units Next 12 Months: 100
Who They Are: The world’s largest quick-service restaurant has huge name reconition and a chicken-dominant menu. KFC offers full-service restaurants as well as non-traditional express units for captive markets.

Liberty Tax Service
Total Units: 3,468
Total Investment: $56,800-$69,900
Franchise Fee: $40,000
Franchise Royalty: Varies by store
Employees Needed: 6-8
Projected New Units Next 12 Months: 500
Who They Are: Liberty provides tax services to the 60 percent of the population that outsources its tax preparation. Requires no prior tax experience.

Maids Home Services
Total Units: 1,054
Total Investment: $175,000-$225,000
Franchise Fee: $10,000
Franchise Royalty: 3.9 - 6.9 percent
Employees Needed: 8
Projected New Units Next 12 Months: 80
Who They Are: Residential cleaning franchise provides 7 weeks of training, including 10 days in the field.

McAlister’s Deli
Total Units: 288
Total Investment: $400,000-$1.5million
Franchise Fee: $40,000
Franchise Royalty: 5 percent
Employees Needed: 40
Projected New Units Next 12 Months: 45
Who They Are: Fast, casual restaurant, featuring deli sandwiches, stuffed baked potatoes, salads, soups and desserts.

Pizza Patron
Total Units: 90
Total Investment: $199,000-$273,000
Franchise Fee: $20,000
Franchise Royalty: 5 percent
Employees Needed: 8
Projected New Units Next 12 Months: N/A
Who They Are: Founded in 1986, Pizza Patrón is a brand developed especially for Latinos, their taste palette and their communities.

PostNet
Total Units: 765
Total Investment: $172,000-$198,000
Franchise Fee: $30,000
Franchise Royalty: 5 percent
Employees Needed: 3
Projected New Units Next 12 Months: 50
Who They Are: Gaphic design, digital printing and copying, computer rental and a host of finishing services.

Pronto Insurance
Total Units: 22
Total Investment: $60,000-$72,000
Franchise Fee: $15,000
Franchise Royalty: 3 percent
Employees Needed: 4
Projected New Units Next 12 Months: 40
Who They Are: A full-service retail office providing low-cost insurance products and income tax services.

ServiceMaster Clean
Total Units: 4,488
Total Investment: $16,900-$49,000
Franchise Fee: $16,900-$49,000
Franchise Royalty: 4 –10 percent
Employees Needed: 5
Projected New Units Next 12 Months: 150
Who They Are: Commercial cleaning franchisor specializing in residential cleaning and disaster restoration. Provides financing for the initial franchise fee, start-up equipment and vehicles.
Stratus
Building Solutions
Total Units: 4,111
Total Investment: $1,000-$40,000
Franchise Fee: $1,000
Franchise Royalty: 5 percent
Employees Needed: 4
Projected New Units Next 12 Months:2,000
Who They Are: Commercial cleaning franchise that says franchisees earn between $500 and $15,000 per month. An industry leader in environmentally responsible projects.

Vanguard
Cleaning Systems
Total Franchised Units: 1,847
Total Investment: $7,000-$35,000
Franchise Fee: $7,000-$35,000
Franchise Royalty: 5 percent
Employees Needed: 1
Projected New Units Next 12 Months: 700
Who They Are: Since 1984 Vanguard has been an active franchisor in the commercial cleaning industry and currently seeks unit and master franchisees in the United States and Canada.

VR Business Brokers
Total Franchised Units: 135
Total Investment: $65,000-$150,000
Franchise Fee: $26,500
Franchise Royalty: 6 percent
Employees Needed: 3
Projected New Units Next 12 Months: 25
Who They Are: International network of business brokers and intermediaries, specializing in the sale of small- to mid-size companies. Franchisor provides training, support and marketing materials.

Popularity: 4% [?]

From: CBS News

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said early Wednesday morning he may consider reversing Shirley Sherrod’s dismissal, but the former USDA official, fired because of out-of-context remarks about race, says she may not want her job back.

“Because of all the publicity surrounding what happened…how would I be treated once I’m back there? I just don’t know,” Sherrod said this morning on ABC’s “Good Morning America.” “I would have to be reassured on that.”

The USDA asked Sherrod to resign on Monday after a conservative blog released an edited video of remarks she gave at an NAACP conference that gave the impression she discriminated against a white farmer. Her full remarks, however, made clear she was relating a story from two decades ago — long before she joined the USDA — and that she ultimately learned an important lesson to disregard race. The wife of the farmer in question stated yesterday that Sherrod is a “friend for life” who helped save their family farm.

Sherrod said yesterday that the USDA, at the behest of the White House, pressed her to resign without listening to her side of the story or taking the time to review the remarks she gave to the NAACP. Before Vilsack said this morning he would reconsider his decision, he said he was holding his ground. The White House said it played no part in Vilsack’s decision but that it stood by it.

“For them all day yesterday to say they were standing by their decision and now at this late hour to be saying they’re now willing to look at the facts, it’s hard to take at this point,” Sherrod said this morning on NBC’s “Today Show.”

Sherrod said on ABC that no one from the USDA has attempted to contact her since she was asked to resign, nor has she communicated directly with the White House. She said she still supports President Obama.

“I’m a bit disappointed that things happened in the way that they happened. It doesn’t take away my support for the administration,” she said. “When I accepted the position at rural development, always in the back of my mind was doing the very best that I could to have that be a good reflection on [Obama] and what he was trying to do.”

Popularity: 3% [?]

From: Hispanic News

Hispanic-owned businesses are booming across the United States, particularly in the South.

Arkansas had a 160 percent increase in Hispanic-owned business, growing from 2,094 businesses in 2002 to 5,457 in 2007, according to a recently released study by the U.S. Census Bureau.

“Our Hispanic community has grown significantly,” said Fayetteville, Ark., Chamber of Commerce President Steve Clark. “That diversity is very good for us. We have a Spanish language radio station now, which is something we would not have had five years ago.”

Other Southern states also have increases. In 2007, North Carolina had 21,277 Hispanic-owned businesses, a 135 percent increase from 2002, with 9,043 businesses. Nationally, Hispanic-owned businesses increased by 44 percent, compared to an 18 percent increase in all U.S. businesses.

“The diversity is very smart for us. If we want to attract new jobs, you have to have a very culturally and diverse community to do that,” Clark said.

North Carolina and Arkansas still have low numbers of Hispanic-owned businesses compared to some other states.

California has the highest number of Hispanic-owned businesses, 566,000.

Florida had the second-highest number of Hispanic-owned businesses, 450,000, followed by Texas, with 447,000.

The boom in business can be attributed to the growth of the Hispanic community in these states. In 2008, 7 percent of North Carolina’s population was Hispanic, up from 4.7 percent in 2000, according to the Census.

“We have found one of the biggest reasons people migrate here is education,” said Raul Herrera, vice president of the North Carolina Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. “There is an opportunity for a very good education, and it’s fairly easy to pay off. It’s an opportunity to educate their children and themselves that may not be available in another state.”

Although Hispanic and other minority-owned businesses are surpassing the average growth rate, revenue produced by minority businesses is significantly lower than nonminority businesses.

In 2007, average gross receipts for minority-owned firms increased to $179,000 from $167,000 in 2002 but remained lower than non-minority-owned firms, which grossed an average of $490,000, according to the report.

Minority firms are relatively recent to the game. Also there’s a factor of access to capital, which has been an area of frustration for minority-owned firms, said David Hinson, director of the Minority Business Development Agency, part of the U.S. Department of Commerce. “Access to contracts has also been challenging.”

The largest group of businesses owned by Hispanics, 30 percent, are in construction, repair and maintenance.

However, Cindy Ramos-Davidson, CEO of the El Paso, Texas Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, said other sectors are growing.

“Although many of our new, growing Hispanic business are in the service industry, we are noticing a trend of businesses opening their doors in the medical, transportation and defense arenas, among others,” Ramos-Davidson said.

Clark said Arkansas also has a large number of Hispanic-owned businesses in the retail sector, and business in accounting and real estate are growing.

“We expect to see this continue,” Clark said. “We are very excited about it because it is very positive for our community.”

Popularity: 4% [?]

From: Hispanic News

A roaring celebration rocked Spain on Sunday, with some 300,000 people in the capital’s downtown forming a sea of red and yellow in tribute to the nation’s first World Cup title.

The country’s flag and team colors were in full display on Paseo de Recoletos boulevard as hordes of fans watched the match live on gigantic TV screens.

Then, as the final whistle marked Spain’s 1-0 victory over the Netherlands in extra time, fireworks lighted up the sky. Crowds began dancing and singing one of the team’s battle cries, “Let’s Get Them.”

Television shots showed partying in jammed town squares across the country, from Zaragoza in the northeast to Seville in the southwest. The celebrations were easily the biggest in the country in living memory.

A roar rose from Madrid, and almost certainly across the nation, when goalkeeper Iker Casillas lifted the cup in South Africa. Spain, long tagged a perennial underachiever, had never before gone to the World Cup final.

In the Netherlands, the mood was funereal. Fans wept and hugged in The Hague at the final whistle and tossed of handfuls of orange confetti into the air that had been intended for a victory party.

“It’s such a deception. We were so close. I feel empty, said Sander Lubbers, a 33-year-old shopworker.

“It’s a great shame, but Spain was the better team.” said Arend-jan Meijer.

“It’s only football,” he added, as he headed for home kicking his way through piles of plastic beer cups.

In Madrid, the beer tasted better. Vuvuzuela horns so typical of the matches in South Africa this World Cup, had droned throughout the city and car horns began to honk incessantly.

Tens of thousands put up with more than 100-degree heat from early in the day to get the best positions before giant screens in major plazas in towns and cities. In Madrid, emergency ambulance services treated dozens of people who had fainted.

Television images even showed crowds waving Spanish flags in the city of Barcelona, where more than 1.1 million protested on Saturday to demand autonomy for their Catalonia region.

Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, whose poll numbers have dropped due to the country’s economic woes, said he celebrated the win with some Catalan sparkling wine.

“We raised a glass of cava and a few tears came to my eyes, which is unusual for me, because I know how to control my emotions,” Zapatero said. “They were 120 intense minutes for me. It was an epic victory. We all feared penalties.”

On the street, 22-year-old Marta Seco was overcome with emotion.

“This is the greatest sporting event in the history of the country,” she shouted with tears in her eyes.

The fiesta wasn’t even contained to Spain. In Toronto, for instance, Spanish fans also took to the streets, dancing on a U-Haul truck, a streetcar, and even a transit shelter.

In Mexico City, about 2,500 revelers converged at the Plaza de Cibeles in the trendy Roma Norte district. They banged drums, blew vuvuzelas and marched around the fountain there - an exact copy of the monument with the same name in Madrid - chanting and singing.

Back in Madrid, one banner amid the masses read “Octopus Paul, Forever!” and featured a crudely drawn picture of the octopus from Germany who became a pop culture sensation by correctly picking World Cup matches. He was right again about the final.

Police helicopters hovered over Madrid into the early hours of Monday and riot police protected major monuments.

Fans watching from a patio bar in a working-class neighborhood whooped in joy, yelling “Spain! Spain!” They danced on their bar chairs and hugged each other. Others yelled “Yes! Yes! The cup is now ours!”

The night sky of the Alcoron suburb was bright with fireworks and the bar patrons cheered each other with beer and sangria on a sweltering summer night, then joined in the dancing, dodging firecrackers tossed about by other fans.

“It’s just amazing, I almost don’t believe it,” said a beaming Feliciano Hernandez, a 25-year-old electrician. “I’m so proud, totally happy and living for the moment and not thinking about anything else right now.”

Nacho Moreno danced in the street waving the Spanish flag he had kept wrapped around his head for luck during the game as cars drove by, honking their horns in salute. He said he would probably drink until dawn to celebrate.

“It’s phenomenal! Spain won. I knew it was possible,” said the 23-year-old waiter.

Popularity: 5% [?]

From: Wall Street Journal

Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet’s campaign said today that it dismissed a summer intern who allegedly told a person seeking to talk to the senator about pending legislation that she could secure a one-on-one meeting for a $2,400 donation.

The campaign said the intern, a 22-year-old senior at Middlebury College in Vermont, had been acting on his own in sending a note by email that violated campaign policy.

“A college student took it upon himself to cross a very serious line that in no way, shape, or form is practiced or supported by this campaign,” said Trevor Kincaid, a campaign spokesman.

The email was sent June 4, the first week on the job for Jeffrey Garofano, an unpaid intern in Bennet’s campaign finance office.

An acquaintance had emailed Garofano to ask about upcoming events where she might be able to buttonhole Bennet or one of his staffers to talk about a fuel-standards bill.

“With a donation of $2,400 or more,” Garofano allegedly wrote, activists pressing for the fuel-standards bill “can schedule a one-on-one hour long meeting with the Senator.” Hosting “an event for $5,000 or more,” the email said, would offer “a better chance to lobby Michael.”

Garofano did not respond to emailed requests for comment.

Bennet, a Democrat, was appointed to his seat last year and is now running his first-ever political campaign. He faces a primary challenge Aug. 10 from the former speaker of the Colorado House, Andrew Romanoff.

Such solicitations for campaign funds do not violate the law. That line is crossed only if an elected official promises to take official action for a donor in exchange for a campaign contribution, according to Kenneth Gross, a campaign finance lawyer with Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP.

“This is an example of extremely bad staff training,” said Brett Kappel, a campaign-finance attorney with the law firm of Arent Fox LLP.

Kincaid said safeguards are in place to prevent unauthorized communication from the Bennet campaign, including a requirement that interns copy supervisors on all their campaign-related emails, but that Garofano went outside the system by using a personal email account.

“It’s not always easy to instill the importance of following the letter of a campaign’s rules and philosophy,” said Kincaid.

Earlier this year, a person raising funds for Sen. Bob Corker (R., Tenn.) sent an email to Wall Street executives and lobbyists that suggested gaining access to the senator in exchange for campaign donations. “We are hoping for $10,000 for meal events or $5,000 for small meetings,” read the email.

The fund-raising events were later canceled and an aide to Corker said the email mistakenly left the impression that a payment was required to gain access to the senator.

Popularity: 5% [?]