As Wall Street Plunges, More Culture War Ads, Funded by Ab-Only Profiteer

On a day when most Americans are looking at the news from Wall Street, as markets plunge, comes word from far-right social conservatives that one multimillionaire funder will attempt to distract voters with independent television advertising on more Culture War issues.

Last week featured the now resoundingly discredited lies about age appropriate comprehensive sex ed, discredited even by Karl Rove on Fox News Sunday when he said, "McCain has similarly gone, in his ads, one step too far and sort of attributing to Obama, things that are, you know, beyond the 100% truth test."

Those lies were about legislation in Illinois promoting comprehensive sex ed, that clearly stated in Section 2, Lines 11 and 12, that all sex ed curriculum would be "age appropriate."  For Kindergartners, that meant teaching kids "good touch, bad touch" lessons to protect them from pedophiles and predators.

The abstinence-only-until-marriage crowd pushed the McCain campaign one step too far, even for Karl Rove. Now one of abstinence-only’s chief profiteers, Raymond Ruddy, a wealthy multimillionaire, is going to be the primary funder of an independent advertising campaign that will attack Obama on the also discredited, by, claims that he supports infanticide.

Social conservatives — emboldened by the addition of Sarah Palin to the ticket — are promoting Culture War issues to shift the focus away from the economy, housing, energy, the environment and national security.  In the process, the debate Americans could be having on these critical issues is being distorted — as is the reality about sexual and reproductive health. 

Who can blame the far-right when at stake in the election is their access to government grants to continue profiting from their failed abstinence-only programs; their efforts to ban all abortions, even in the case of rape and incest; and to reduce access to contraception by allowing individual medical professionals to redefine contraception as abortion, as the Bush Administration is currently attempting to do.

The ad will be emotionally powerful and manipulative, but in the end it is being funded primarily by one multimillionaire, whose company Maximus, has benefited from more than $100 million dollars in government grants during the Bush Administration. That fact won’t likely appear in the :30 second ad or many mainstream media reports.  Meanwhile, wars still rage, the economy is in decline, the environment is a mess, and Americans with jobs are concerned about losing them, and those without health care are wondering what to do if they get sick.

Raymond Ruddy, the multimillionaire behind the ads, will be okay though. Don’t worry about him when you see his ads or hear the media reports about them. 



Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

For more information or to schedule an interview with contact

  • invalid-0

    When it comes to matters of life and death there is not much else that matters. The fact is that Obama voted four times against The Born Alive Infant Protection Act. There was nothing in the bill that would have interfered with Roe vs Wade. Its only intention was to provide medical care to those babies surviving an abortion attempt. Hillary voted for the bill and NARAL said it did not interfere with a woman’s rights. In my mind Obama’s vote suggests he believes in infanticide in the case of botched abortions. With the medical care the baby might live; without it the baby will surely die. We just finished mourning the passing of the 3000 (about) victims of 911. But do you know that on that same day more than 3000 potential American children died in abortion clinics? Obama’s mother was unmarried and pregnant with a black man’s baby in the 1960s until she married Obama Sr. If abortion had been as accepted then, maybe Obama would not have been born. We see what the world would have lost. There was potential in every one of those 40 million aborted babies since Roe v Wade. How many other great politicians, doctors, athletes, teachers etc. have we lost? The Democrats need to address the huge number of abortions with an abortion reduction policy if they do not want Roe v Wade overturned. It should include provisions for support and care for pregnant women, mandatory sonagrams for all women seeking abortions, counseling on abortion alternatives, adoption assistance and other measures to help women keep their children or adopt them out. The Democrats need to shed their image as baby killers if they ever want to win national elections.

  • scott-swenson

    Thanks for sharing your views. On BAIPA, sees it differently, and it seems you do too since you laud Sen. Obama, and it is hard to imagine anyone doing that for someone who really supported infanticide.  People can quibble about the fine points of legislation and why it is introduced in the first place, or why certain negotiating stances are taken to protect other rights, but to accuse someone of infanticide is a stretch too far, even for the extremists on the far-right.  As to what Democrats, both pro-choice and pro-life, and many pro-choice Republicans have been trying to do, you might want to look at the Prevention First Act, the Responsible Education About Life Act, the Unintended Pregnancy Reduction Act, the Access to Birth Control Act, and the Reducing the Need for Abortion and Supporting Parents Act. You probably don’t hear much about those in the mainstream media or from pro-life web sites because they have been blocked by far-right social conservatives in Congress, or not taken up by committees because they didn’t want a fight from the social conservatives.  There are ways people who disagree on difficult issues can work together, but in a climate that is fueled by multimillionaire abstience-only profiteers using distortions and misinformation to protect his more than $100 million dollars in federal grants (paid by your tax dollars), that common ground is hard to find.

    Be the change you seek,

    Scott Swenson, Editor

  • invalid-0

    Scott, you present abstinence as though it is a thing of which people should be ashamed. What’s the problem with promoting self-control and personal responsibility in place of self-gratification and pleasure seeking that, in large part, is the reason contraception is so widespread today?

    As for Obama’s support of infanticide… tell me, Scott, what would YOU call someone who refuses to provide medical care for babies who are born, kicking, living outside the womb? That’s who we’re talking about when discussing survivors of abortion. They no longer fit within the liberal “woman’s right to control her body” mantra — these little humans are living outside the womb, although maybe not for much longer. Nonetheless, they deserve the right to health care as much as the mother who chose this “reproductive health” solution to her problem. Choosing to ignore these babies and refusing to provide any medical care for survivors of abortion is most certainly infanticide. To deny that is to take women’s rights over the line, or maybe just unmasking the selfish lie that it really is.

    Furthermore, you claim that the “ad will be emotionally powerful and manipulative” – yes, listening to a survivor of an 7 1/2 month abortion call Obama out is emotionally powerful. However, it is no more manipulative than your claim in the paragraph prior that the far-right is relentless in “their efforts to ban all abortions, even in the case of rape and incest; and to reduce access to contraception by allowing individual medical professionals to redefine contraception as abortion…” Don’t try to pin the abortion issue on rape and incest – that’s a worn-out tactic. And take a look at the biology behind contraception – no one is trying to “redefine” anything here. Abortafacients are just that, and they speak for themselves.

    But then, I hope that you do get back to housing and the economy in this election… after all, it’s easier than owning up to the real issues, isn’t it? That’s exactly the problem with a nation that would prefer to abandon personal responsibility.

    God bless Raymond Ruddy for being an honorable American.

  • invalid-0

    Hey, very interesting post.

    My written English is not so good so I write in German:

    “Lieber den Spatz in der Hand, als die Taube auf dem Dach.”

    Yours sincerely