The Democratic leviathan was able to hustle from a bidder a cool $1.5 million that will be donated to an AIDS charity. Weinstein then topped that, bringing in $2.3 million for a second pair of seats. The private space shuttle service that DiCaprio and his merry band of moneybags will be using is Virgin Galactic, the fledgling space tourism venture that in 500 years will become the Galactic Empire, headed by wannabe Choom Gang member and international tycoon Richard Branson.

Weinstein has of late been deploying his fundraising machine in the service of the Democratic National Committee and President Obama. Just last week, Obama visited Weinstein’s West Village castle for a fundraiser that set back the 65 guests between $16,200 and $20,000 a plate. At the fundraiser, Obama praised Weinstein’s “amazing movies,” one of which is the DiCaprio-as-a-slaver vehicle “Django Unchained.” Not everyone liked that movie.

American Slavery Was Not A Sergio Leone Spaghetti Western.It Was A Holocaust.My Ancestors Are Slaves.Stolen From Africa.I Will Honor Them.

— Spike Lee (@SpikeLee) December 22, 2012

According to The Hollywood Reporter:

Weinstein also joked that many in the film business might love to see him fly to space as well, ‘but only on a one-way ticket.’

No way Harvey’s going to wind up lost in space. Obama would restart the space shuttle just to bring back his sugar daddy.

H Street is the home of the Center for American Progress (CAP), founded by former Clinton chief of staff John Podesta in the fall of 2003. Originally conceived as a think tank to match the conservative Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute, CAP quickly dropped the thinking and became, simply, a tank. Its objective was to overpower conservatives and Republicans, to devastate them with a fusillade of government activism, to pulverize their fortifications with ammunition loaded into the progressive echo chamber.

Good weapons don’t come cheap. CAP requires considerable stimulus to acquire, track, and destroy its targets. Podesta’s fundraising methods, as one might expect from a Clintonite, were ingenious. He incorporated two entities: The Center for American Progress as a tax-deductible nonprofit 501(c)(3), and the Center for American Progress Action Fund as a tax-exempt 501(c)(4). Donations would not be disclosed, allowing contributors the protection of anonymity even as CAP called for transparency in political giving and government regulation of political speech.

CAP and CAP Action shared office space, and employees of one entity often wrote for the other, but Podesta’s media flacks always were careful to distinguish between them. CAP, for instance, is where you find the high-toned stuff, the demographic determinism of Ruy Teixeira and the collected ravings of Larry Former Reagan Official Korb.

CAP Action is of a lower brow. It publishes the ThinkProgress blog, where for a time you could read, among other critics of the “lobby,” the foreign policy analysis of one Zaid Jilani, who described his opponents on Twitter as “Israel-firsters”; the creative misspellings of amateur philosopher and terrorist impersonator Matthew Yglesias; and the factually half-baked conspiracy theories of Lee Fang. Think of them as the greats.

Like other greats, all three young men have since left the building, moving on to the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (Jilani), Slate (Yglesias), and the Nation (Fang). Funny enough, it was another Nation writer, Ken Silverstein, who published the bombshell report last week on the finances of his colleague’s former employer, exposing for the first time the identities of corporate donors to the Center for American Progress.

Silverstein’s work, like other reporting from the Los Angeles Times and Mother Jones and the WFB, explores the numerous ditches and culverts irrigated by the river of left-wing dark money that flows through American politics. Essential reading, his piece reveals the extent to which liberal groups benefit from the business community’s desire to get right with the mandarins who have the power to sue and investigate and boycott and demonize. For immunity, and for favor, companies are willing to pay a pretty penny.

Silverstein describes how CAP, in just a few years, grew from seed money provided by the secretive Democracy Alliance of progressive donors to obtain assets of more than $20 million. Its finances took a hit in 2006 despite the Democratic victory in that year’s midterm elections. The following year, CAP management created the Business Alliance, “a membership rewards program for corporate contributors.”

Money came in. And when Barack Obama was elected president in 2008, the alliance grew. “CAP’s total assets now top $44 million,” Silverstein reports, “and its Action Fund treasury holds $6 million more.” CAP’s ability to reflect and influence the opinion of liberal elites, however, is priceless.

Silverstein obtained a document CAP used in 2011 to pitch possible members of the Business Alliance. Slog past the barely literate sentences—“Recognizing the importance of the private sector perspective in the issues debate, the Business Alliance program has proven to be a successful way to keep CAP and its experts connected with and cognizant of business perspectives on the issues of highest priority on our work”—and one arrives finally at the nitty-gritty.

Three levels of membership are described. A $25,000 annual contribution gains one’s corporation entry to “regularly scheduled roundtable discussions with CAP experts, business, Hill, and national leaders”; “two opportunities to engage CAP experts in private meetings”; “invitation to VIP events with leaders from government, business, and academia”; and “updates on new CAP reports and products from Business Alliance staff relevant to your unique interests.”

For a $50,000 annual contribution, one’s corporation enjoys all of those benefits, as well as “two additional opportunities to engage CAP experts in private meetings”; an “exclusive Business Alliance overview meeting offering analyses of issues on Capitol Hill”; and a “private session with American Progress communications and outreach staff.”

And for those special interests that just can’t meet and engage and attend sessions enough, a $100,000 contribution gets one’s corporation all of those benefits, as well as a “membership in Green Energy Economy Council (GEEC)”; a “membership in International Business Council pilot program”; an “invitation to participate in Global Progress Summit”; and a “private meeting with a member of the American Progress Executive Committee.” Only in Obama’s America does it cost $100k to be called a GEEC.

Not stated directly, of course, is that what all of the briefings and interactions and councils get you is entry into the corridors of a think tank with close ties to the presidency. Podesta, whose brother is one of the most influential lobbyists in town, oversaw the transition team that staffed the Obama administration. As American Progress chairman, he watches over his empire. The current head of CAP is Neera Tanden, who has worked for Obama and Hillary Clinton. Tom Perriello, a former liberal Democratic congressman who was one of the president’s favorites, runs CAP Action. These are influential people.

So influential are they, that the Department of Energy loan program that gave us Solyndra and First Solar was largely designed in CAP’s offices. Silverstein tells the appalling story of how a CAP representative praised First Solar in congressional testimony, and promoted it in CAP publications, without revealing that the solar manufacturer was a member of the Business Alliance, and that one of CAP’s board members was also on the board of First Solar. (He left the First Solar board in 2012.)

“CAP’s promotion of the company’s interests has supplemented First Solar’s aggressive Washington lobbying efforts, on which it spent more than $800,000 during 2011 and 2012,” Silverstein writes. The investment returned dividends. Such lobbying has allowed First Solar to enjoy hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer-backed loans and subsidies.

“CAP is a strong proponent of alternative energy, so there’s no reason to doubt the sincerity of its advocacy,” Silverstein observes. No reason at all. Yet I wonder if Silverstein would have been so charitable if the organization he was describing was, say, Americans for Prosperity, and the donors Charles and David Koch.

We know already that as long as the companies belong to politically correct institutions and back politically correct causes, they are indulged and given the benefit of the doubt. But this street goes in only one direction. Travel with the wrong fellows, support the wrong causes, and you will be picketed, boycotted, tarred, feathered, and dragged through the media mud.

What First Solar and other members of the Business Alliance such as Pacific Gas and Electric, General Electric, Boeing, Lockheed, the University of Phoenix, the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office, the Confederation of Businessmen and Industrialists of Turkey, Goldman Sachs, Walmart, and Comcast are really buying, then, is not so much access but insurance. They are contributing to the Center for American Progress so that they, too, can benefit from the liberal ability to speak from both sides of the mouth. They can reap the benefits of the market, and even of government privilege, so long as they express concern, real or fake, over global warming or abortion rights or affirmative action or whatever the liberal cause of the day happens to be.

They are not participating in an intellectual project or a political movement or a trade association but a shakedown, a scam, a caper—a compelling and labyrinthine detective story that is only beginning to be unraveled.

Heartland Institute spokesman Jim Lakely said CAP has failed to live up to the standards it applies to conservative groups.

“I find it ironic that the Center for American Progress may now realize how difficult it can be for a controversial nonprofit to have its corporate donors exposed,” Lakely said. “Maybe now CAP will tone down its celebration of crimes in the name of ‘disclosure’ and denunciation of corporate donations to nonprofits—but I have my doubts.”

Lakely’s comments followed on a report Tuesday in the Nation that revealed a partial membership list of CAP’s Business Alliance, a secretive collection of businesses that contribute to the liberal think tank.

The report also revealed CAP leaders have advocated for policies that benefitted a number of its corporate partners. CAP has previously accused conservative organizations of taking money from corporations before advocating in favor of policies that help them.

The Center for American Progress Action Fund’s ThinkProgress blog attacked the Heartland Institute, a conservative think tank, in 2012. It published a list of Heartland’s corporate donors in a post titled, “EXPOSED: The 19 Public Corporations Funding The Climate Denier Think Tank Heartland Institute.”

CAP launched a pressure campaign against companies that contributed to Heartland’s operations. General Motors withdrew its funding of the Heartland Institute in the wake of CAP’s disclosure.

Heartland was not the only political group that received GM contributions. The bailed-out automaker also turned up in the Nation’s report on CAP.

A GM spokeswoman confirmed that the GM Foundation was a member of the Business Alliance and contributed to CAP for several years. She disputed that the company was still a member of the group.

“The information they are citing is old, very old … according to our internal records our GM Foundation contributed to this organization in ‘06, ‘07 and ‘08,” a GM spokeswoman told the Washington Free Beacon on Wednesday via email. “The corporation did not contribute and neither part of GM is involved with them as of today. Obviously, the Nation is using either very old or wrong information.”

CAP, a staunch supporter of the auto bailout, advocated for legislation that would have benefitted GM, while the company was a contributor. CAP embraced then-Sen. Barack Obama’s 2007 proposal to use taxpayer dollars to pay the automaker’s burgeoning employee healthcare costs if the company promised to build more hybrid vehicles. The page has since been scrubbed from its site.

“GM faces legacy costs (health care plus pensions for retired workers) of $1,500 per car. … Clearly the failure to address America’s health care finance problems has become a major competitive disadvantage,” the CAP post says. “Targeting retiree health costs offers a strong incentive for industry action on fuel savings investment and reduces the competitive disadvantage.”

CAP was also a major proponent of the auto bailout, which used $50 billion in taxpayer funds to keep GM from having to undergo a traditional bankruptcy.

Lakely is sympathetic to the appearance of corporate influence at CAP, pointing out that a think tank’s principles can align with particular corporate interest without being compromised.

“Who funds the message is not relevant; the quality of the argument and the soundness of the public policy prescription is what matters,” he said.

Auto expert Ed Niedermeyer said GM’s embrace of groups like CAP reflected the influence that political pressure and public money have on companies.

“GM’s contributions to CAP, its incredibly generous bailout, its shift towards the president and CAP on issues like climate change, combine to create a troubling picture of deep collusion between the government and corporate interests,” Niedermeyer said.

The Center for American Progress (CAP) issued a report, “Freedom of the Press and Expression in Turkey,” on May 14 that critics say downplays the Turkish government’s increasingly authoritarian crackdown on press freedoms.

CAP did not disclose in the report that it receives money from a Turkish business group named TUSKON. The organization has donated at least $25,000 to CAP in order to gain entrance into its exclusive Business Alliance, according to the Nation.

The report was funded in part by the Turkish branch of billionaire George Soros’ Open Society Foundation. However, CAP’s ties to TUSKON went unmentioned.

TUSKON has close ties to the Erdogan government and, with CAP, jointly hosts an annual “fact finding” trip to Turkey.

Attendees on the junket are given access to senior Turkish government officials. CAP and TUSKON have also jointly held several luncheons at which U.S. commerce secretaries have spoken.

Experts on Turkey argue that CAP has not been transparent about its financial relationship with TUSKON and that the money could be influencing the think tank’s academic work.

One insider speculated that CAP intentionally took a soft approach in order to preserve its close relationship with TUSKON and other groups connected to the Turkish government.

“I can certainly understand the inability of CAP to put out a fair report” on freedom of the press said one D.C. foreign policy insider with intimate knowledge of the Turkish government. “They’re very much interested in access” to Erdogan’s camp.

“The softness of this report is therefore no surprise,” added the source. “It does raise a lot of questions about whether they can even write a fair report” on such issues.

The report attempts to justify and explain Erdogan’s crackdown on the press as a “necessary, if sometimes unpleasant, correction” that will bring about increased democratic reform.

Turkey currently imprisons more journalists than any other country in the world. Leading journalist advocacy groups such as the Committee to Project Journalists (CPJ) have repeatedly cited Erdogan’s government as “world’s worst jailer.”

Of the 232 journalists imprisoned worldwide at the end of 2012, 49 were in Turkey. China and Iran are the next most egregious offenders, according to CPJ.

Erdogan was not asked by reporters to explain his pursuit of the press during a joint press conference May 16 with President Barack Obama at the White House.

Former Middle East Pentagon advisor Michael Rubin said CAP “gives Erdogan too much benefit of the doubt.”

“What CAP doesn’t address is that Erdogan stacked the bodies which police such things,” said Rubin, who claims that an Erdogan confidant served him with a lawsuit last month after he lampooned the Turkish government.

“Erdogan goes above and beyond in his response [to press criticism]—personally suing even political cartoonists who lampoon him and his government,” Rubin said.

However, the CAP report blames anti-government ethnic groups such as the Kurds for spurring unrest and provoking government suppression.

“So far, the government’s behavior has tended toward greater repression. But a disclaimer is necessary before delving into the details of the imprisonment of journalists and media ownership, as well as direct and indirect censorship in Turkey,” CAP states in its report, which was authored by senior fellow Michael Werz.

Werz has gone on CAP’s annual TUSKON-sponsored trips. During one such trip in 2010, CAP chairman John Podesta praised Werz’s pro-Turkey work during a speech before TUSKON officials.

Werz did not respond to a Washington Free Beacon request for comment.

Werz accused free press advocates of overreaching in his report and said they were undermining “the wider political effort to ensure reform.”

“Turkey today is more democratic than in the past, if perhaps less socially liberal,” the report says.

“The blame [for the crackdown] must not be placed solely on the government,” CAP’s report concludes.

CAP also obscured the nature of the Armenian genocide, in which Turkey systematically slaughtered more than 1 million Armenians.

The Turkish government has never acknowledged the mass killings as genocide. The report only refers to the genocide as simply, “the death of more than 1 million Armenians during and after the First World War.”

CAP did not respond to multiple Free Beacon requests for comment on the report and its ties to TUSKON. This included requests for its TUSKON-backed trip itineraries, as well as for information about potential funding that may have been provided by TUSKON.

CAP’s most recent trip with TUSKON was held in February, according to the Nation.

“The CAP delegation met with U.S. Ambassador Francis Ricciardone and senior Turkish government officials,” wrote reporter Ken Silverstein.

“A former CAP staffer told me that TUSKON had ‘amazing access’ and ‘could call anyone in the government and get us a meeting or interview,’ Silverstein wrote. “As a result of the Turkish group’s support, CAP was ‘totally in the tank for them.’”

TUSKON is also a known affiliate of the Gulen movement, whose charismatic spiritual leader, Fethullah Gulen, has come under fire for spreading his Islamist theology across the globe.

A wealthy businessman and spiritual guru to millions, Gulen is viewed as a cult-like personality among critics who have accused him of building a global Islamic empire.

TUSKON is believed to operate as the Gulen movement’s small business arm, lobbying government officials and forming business relationships with Western organizations such as CAP.

“Tuskon is happy to make use of the network of the Turkish religious leader, Fethullah Gulen, who has had huge success in setting up Turkish private schools across the world, and not only in Muslim countries,” according to Le Monde Diplomatique (LMD), a French magazine.

“There is a clear synergy between the entrepreneurial Gulen movement and Tuskon,” LMD reported.

CAP’s Turkey report also drew fire from the political left.

“What’s with CAP report on press freedom in Turkey?” tweeted Turkey expert Aliza Marcus, a former spokeswoman for the liberal fringe group J Street. “Or was goal actually to whitewash press abuses and Kurds issue?”

“This CAP report on press freedom in Turkey spends more time apologizing for Erdogan than lamenting jailed journos,” Marcus later tweeted.

“CAP report is absolute disgrace,” she added.

Launched last year, American Bridge 21st Century PAC specializes in opposition research, and the delivery of oppo news tips to media organizations—including information about Romney’s time at Bain. The group is part of a larger network of liberal organizations, including Media Matters. Two of the donors to that network, Jonathan Lavine and Joshua Bekenstein, are actually Bain executives.

American Bridge ceased its public attacks on Bain last year at the behest of a top fundraiser, who worried such attacks might damage her relationship with the Bain executives, BuzzFeed reports:

The fact that Bain executives would double as major liberal donors also complicates the portrait of the group as a conservative bastion of high finance. One person familiar with the internal conversations at American Bridge said Bonner, battling “donor fatigue” from donors being tapped for Media Matters, American Bridge, and other groups, was particularly concerned about two men. The attacks could “ruin her relationship” with two big donors, the person privy to internal conversations said Bonner warned: (Jonathan) Lavine, a Bain Capital managing director who was also a major fundraiser for President Obama’s reelection campaign in 2012; and (Joshua) Bekenstein, another top Bain executive who also contributed more modestly to Obama’s campaign. Because American Bridge and Media Matters keep their donors secret, public records do not show either man’s contributions and BuzzFeed was unable to determine who had given to which group, and how much.

Despite ending the public attacks on Bain, the group — funded in part by Bain donors — was a “prolific” source of Bain attacks for news organizations, according to BuzzFeed:

American Bridge officials also argue that those public forays were never their main goal. As a group focused on opposition research, American Bridge was prolific source of tips on Romney’s record at Bain to news organizations (including BuzzFeed), much of it provided on the condition the group not be credited, some of it provided with credit. They were also a key source of research to other liberal groups, said several progressive leaders prompted by the group to contact BuzzFeed.

It’s impossible for an outsider to arbitrate whether the group’s decision to operate largely behind the scenes was driven by Bonner’s relationship with Bain capital, as some people close to the group charge; or whether it was a purely strategic decision on the merits, as the group’s leaders forcefully argue. There is no dispute, however, that the group produced reams of research, much of which made its way into the slashing attack ads produced by Priorities USA.

[United Food and Commercial Workers] President Joe Hansen homed in on the president’s speech at the 2009 AFL-CIO convention. Obama at the time said union members could keep their insurance under the law, but Hansen writes “that the president’s statement to labor in 2009 is simply not true for millions of workers.”

Republicans have long attacked Obama’s promise that “nothing in this plan will require you to change your coverage or your doctor.” But the fact that unions are now noting it as well is a clear sign that supporters of the law are growing anxious about the law’s implementation.

Many UFCW members have what are known as multi-employer or Taft-Hartley plans. According to the administration’s analysis of the Affordable Care Act, the law does not provide tax subsidies for the roughly 20 million people covered by the plans. Union officials argue that interpretation could force their members to change their insurance and accept more expensive and perhaps worse coverage in the state-run exchanges.

“You can’t have the same quality healthcare that you had before, despite what the president said,” Hansen told the Hill. “Now what’s going to happen is everybody is going to have to go to private for-profit insurance companies. We just don’t think that’s right. … We just want to keep what we already have and what we bought at tremendous cost.”

Hansen also warned that if workers see their healthcare benefits recede, the Democrats could pay the price in 2014. The UFCW spent nearly $11 million on the 2012 election, including about $2 million in direct contributions to Democratic candidates.

UFCW is not the only Obama ally to oppose Obama’s signature reform. The United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers and Allied Workers called for “repeal or complete reform,” while UNITE HERE voiced discontent with the law.

UNITE HERE, which represents 270,000 hotel workers and spent $7.4 million on the election, has also broken with Obama on his nomination of billionaire Hyatt Hotel heiress Penny Pritzker for commerce secretary. The union began protesting outside her company’s Chicago headquarters on Tuesday—two day before Pritzker’s confirmation hearing.

UNITE HERE, which represents tens of thousands of hotel and restaurant workers, will gather in front of the Hyatt Regency Hotel in Chicago to demonstrate against Penny Pritzker, one of Obama’s largest campaign bundlers.

“The Commerce Secretary’s first concern should be to create good, family sustaining jobs for all Americans,” Hyatt housekeeper Cathy Youngblood said in a release. “Under Pritzker’s direction, Hyatt has led the hotel industry in a race to the bottom by aggressively subcontracting out career hotel jobs to minimum wage temps. This is not the model that will lead our country to a bright economic future.”

Pritzker’s father founded the Hyatt Hotel chain and bequeathed a multi-billion dollar fortune to her and her siblings. She has dedicated her fortune to liberal politics, especially Obama’s campaigns for the U.S. Senate and the presidency.

UNITE HERE has been engaged in a bitter battle with Hyatt for almost a decade, lobbying for better pay and benefits and accusing the company of “reprehensible” behavior and unfair resistance to unionization.

However, the union maintained silence about Pritzker’s nomination as it campaigns for immigration reform and other liberal agenda items. Pritzker bundled more than $1.3 million for Obama’s presidential runs and contributed $250,000 to his 2013 inauguration. She was a campaign reelection co-chair for Obama in 2012 and served on the president’s jobs council.

When Obama announced Pritzker’s nomination in the Rose Garden on May 2, the union focused on filling her seat on the hotel’s board of directors rather than her role in the administration.

“I’m confident that Ms. Pritzker will do her best to help our country succeed, but if Hyatt is going to succeed, they need to change—I believe they need someone like me to help,” Youngblood said at the time.

The union did not mince words on Monday, accusing Pritzker of unfairly treating her workers.

“Our wages have been frozen since 2009, and our families are suffering,” Cristian Toro, a banquet server at the Hyatt Regency McCormick, said in the release. “Hyatt has set a bad example for the rest of the hotel industry, and we’re taking a stand.”

A Hyatt spokeswoman accused the union of engaging in “misinformation” in its campaign to derail the Pritzker nomination.

“Our associates in Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Waikiki have endured nearly four years without a wage increase because UNITE HERE leaders won’t allow our associates to vote on new contracts unless Hyatt agrees to impose unionization on employees at other Hyatt hotels,” the hotel said in a statement. “It’s a shame UNITE HERE leaders are sacrificing the needs of those they represent in order to build their membership.”

Pritzker’s nomination has driven a wedge in the Obama coalition and the union sought to highlight its supporters at other liberal interest groups.

UNITE HERE’s release invoked support from the National Organization of Women (NOW), the National Council of La Raza, and the National Gay and Lesbian Taskforce in its fight against Hyatt.

Some of those groups appear to be sitting out the coming nomination fight. NOW embraced Pritzker’s nomination when it was announced. A La Raza spokesman said that the group signed on to support the union’s cause against Hyatt, but “had no idea” why the union included the group in the release.

Neither the National Gay and Lesbian Taskforce, nor Hyatt returned calls for comment.

Austan Goolsbee caused a mini-scandal in 2010 when he told reporters during a background press briefing that Koch Industries—the company of libertarian philanthropists Charles and David Koch—paid no income taxes.

“So in this country, we have partnerships, S corps, we have LLCs—we have a series of entities that do not pay corporate income tax,” Goolsbee told reporters in August 2010. “Some of which are really giant firms. You know, Koch Industries, I think, is one, is a multibillion dollar business, and so that creates a narrower base because we got literally something like 50 percent of the business income in the U.S. is going to businesses that don’t pay any corporate income tax.”

Conservative lawmakers and activists said Goolsbee’s statements not only unfairly singled out the president’s political opponents and used confidential IRS documents to do so.

“Almost 3 years since his remarks and the inspector general’s investigation of those remarks, we still don’t know what Mr. Goolsbee really relied upon nor has it ever been explained why Mr. Goolsbee was talking about Koch in the first place,” Koch Industries legal counsel Mark Holden said in an email.

Goolsbee himself has yet to clear the air; in a tweet last week, he offered yet another explanation as to how he received the confidential IRS filings of Koch Industries.

“There was no secret info on koch bros. It came from here,” Goolsbee tweeted, linking to a St. Petersburg Times article. “But was a mistake–one of the other Koch bros.”

The White House consistently denied that it peeked at Koch Industries tax documents, but it has offered shifting explanations for where Goolsbee got his info.

An administration official told Politico the White House got the information from testimony before the President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board (PERAB) and from Koch’s own website.

When then-White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was asked to name the sources, he dithered.

“I don’t know the answer off the top of my head on that,” Gibbs said. “Again, I can see if there’s better information on that.”

The White House later said Goolsbee was just repeating something he recalled reading.

Holden said there has still never been a satisfactory explanation.

“Mr. Goolsbee’s May 14th tweet offers up yet another alleged reason for what he relied upon when he discussed our confidential tax information back in 2010,” Holden said in an email. “Like the other alleged sources for our tax information that he and the White House claimed he relied upon back in 2010, the 2003 newspaper article he now refers to in no way discusses Koch Industries or our tax information.”

Holden also said the philanthropist businessmen are waiting on a government report of the disclosure.

“In addition, we have never seen the final inspector general’s report concerning these issues,” Holden said.

The Treasury Department’s inspector general launched a probe into Goolsbee’s comments, but that report was never made public.

Goolsbee did not return requests for comment.

ProPublica, a left-leaning nonprofit investigative news outlet, teamed with Marketplace, a National Public Radio (NPR) show sponsored by American Public Media, last week to expose “deceptively expensive” high interest lending practices aimed at poor customers.

The series took a harsh look at installment and payday loans. These organizations provide high interest loans for small amounts to people with bad credit rates. One ProPublica story, for instance, highlighted a Wal-Mart employee whose $207 loan cost her $350.

“A credit check showed “my FICO score was 500-something,” [the borrower] remembered, putting her creditworthiness in the bottom 25 percent of borrowers. “But they didn’t have no problem giving me the loan.”

She walked out with a check for $207. To pay it back, she agreed to make seven monthly payments of $50 for a total of $350. The loan papers said the annual percentage rate, which includes interest as well as fees, was 90 percent.

ProPublica has pocketed substantial donations from Herbert Sandler and his late wife, Marion, who made a fortune on subprime mortgages issued to poor customers with bad credit. The Sandlers’ World Savings Bank pioneered the technique of adjustable rate mortgages that offer easy money to customers, but carry high interest rates. The couple sold the bank for $2.3 billion in 2006 to Wachovia.

The sale played a major role in the financial crisis. Wachovia imploded under the weight of the risky lending liabilities. It folded and was subsequently purchased by Wells Fargo.

After the sale, the Sandlers approached ProPublica founder Paul Steiger about spending as much as $10 million per year on investigative journalism. The Sandlers do not publicize how much they have given, but ProPublica lists the Sandler Foundation as a supporter on its website.

They provided $20 million in seed money to launch the Center for American Progress in 2003 and gave millions to far-left groups, such as ACORN and MoveOn.Org.

The couple’s focus on funding media initiatives led the liberal site Slate.com to conclude that they wanted to “return us to the days of the partisan press.”

Neither ProPublica, nor American Public Media returned emails for comment.

The FBI stated in a Tuesday press release:

McDaniel, the former treasurer of the campaign/political committee for a Philadelphia city councilperson, was fired from his city-paid airport job after the city Board of Ethics identified numerous reporting irregularities by McDaniel in the campaign’s required city filings.

Between 2009 and 2011, McDaniel used several methods to routinely and, at times, without authorization, withdraw funds from the committee account, which funds he then used for his own purposes and other purposes. At times, McDaniel wrote and cashed checks to himself and wrote checks to Progressive Agenda, a political action committee which he controlled and from which he then took stolen funds. McDaniel concealed the theft by filing false and incomplete campaign finance reports.

McDaniel was indicted in February for wire fraud. He was a top donor to Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams’ election campaign in 2009. Personally donating more than $9,000 to the district attorney’s campaign would have been a violation of campaign limits; however, then-candidate Dan McCaffery triggered the “millionaire’s provision” in that DA race, doubling contribution caps.

Two Philadelphia mayors have fired McDaniel since 2005. He has an eight-year history of violating election laws and was a paid consultant for Mayor Michael Nutter’s 2011 reelection campaign.

Brown has her own ethical issues.

The councilwoman admitted last year to the Philadelphia Ethics Board that she misused campaign funds to repay a personal loan received in 2010 from Chaka Fattah, Jr. (a.k.a. “Chip”).  This admission came a month after federal officials raided Fattah’s home inside the Ritz-Carlton in Philadelphia.

Fattah has been under investigation by the IRS and FBI since 2012 for questionable tax and banking issues. Former Pennsylvania Gov. and MSNBC contributor Ed Rendell has begun fundraising efforts to help relieve the legal bills Fattah’s family has accumulated for their son’s defense.

A 16-page settlement agreement between the City of Philadelphia Board of Ethics and the councilwoman depicts the “material omissions and misstatements,” “excess contributions from Progressive Agenda PAC,” disclosure violations, and misappropriation of campaign funds for which the campaign was responsible.