Congressman With Guts

Martin Sheen supports Alan Grayson

Video Embed: 

Thumbnail URL: 
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/E09u3xm847I/1.jpg

Heating or Eating: Choose One

The GOP has just set a new world record for “Insidious.” The Republicans have cut food stamps for the poor – only in Democratic states.

Here is how they did it. Food stamps, a/k/a the Food Supplement Program, is limited to the needy. Neediness is calculated based on family income. Income is calculated after subtracting deductions. One of those deductions is the “Full Standard Utility Allowance,” or FSUA, which is $644. Families who receive Low-Income Heating Assistance Program (LIHEAP) payments are automatically eligible to take the FSUA deduction. That reduces their income, and makes them more likely to qualify for food stamps.

In the farm bill that just passed the House (I voted against it), the sole GOP food stamp cut was a change in the qualification rules to prevent LIHEAP recipients from automatically qualifying for the FSUA deduction. This is a $9 billion cut.

What do Vermont, New York, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Illinois and Maine have in common? They’re cold, and they’re Democratic. What do Alabama, Louisiana, Texas and Mississippi have in common? They’re warm, and they’re Republican.

Are you starting to get the picture?

In fact, Democracy for America has calculated that 97% of this cut in food stamps falls on blue D.C. and 15 blue states: the New England states, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Michigan, Wisconsin, Montana, Washington, Oregon and California. All of them but Montana voted for President Obama twice. Twenty-eight of their 32 Senators are Democrats.

So basically, the GOP Farm Bill cuts food stamps for lots of Democrats, and only some Republicans. And those impoverished Democrats now have to choose between heating and eating.

First the GOP allegedly shuts down access to the busiest bridge in America, to punish a Democratic mayor who wouldn't endorse a Republican governor. Now they cut food stamps, but just in Democratic states.

What’s next? Will the GOP cut Social Security benefits for seniors who are Democrats? Will the GOP slash health coverage for veterans who are Democrats? Will they cut taxes only in the “red states”?

It’s official: The Party of Bellyaching is now the Party of Bullying.

Please sign our petition urging the Senate to reject the Farm Bill. And ask your friends to sign, too. Forward this to them.

And in November, the party that makes you choose between heating and eating is going to take a beating.

Courage,

Rep. Alan Grayson

Back

"Florida Has More Corrupt Officials Than Alligators"

As news of "Too Big To Fail" Gov. Chris Christie's spiteful politically-motivated shutdown of the busiest bridge in America spread last week, MSNBC's Chris Hayes staged a live "Tournament of Corruption" to measure New Jersey's venality against crookedness in other states. Among New Jersey, Illinois, Louisiana and Florida, Hayes sought to crown one state with the coveted and covetous title as the "Most Corrupt." Making the sad case for Florida as the most corrupt state was our Congressman With Guts, Alan Grayson (D-FL). Here is what he said:

Chris Hayes: We have Congressman Alan Grayson, Democrat from Florida, here making the case for that state. . . . Congressman Grayson, the State of Florida barely made it in[to the Tournament of Corruption.] It was duking it out with Rhode Island [for the final spot]. I had a little bit more experience personally with Rhode Island. What's your case for Florida?

Congressman Alan Grayson: Oh, Chris, you have got to be kidding me. We've got the numbers! Within the past thirty-five years, we've averaged one conviction for political corruption every week!

Chris: That's pretty good. [Or bad. – Ed.]

Alan: We led the nation [in corruption convictions in] five out of the past twelve years, Chris. We had a mayor in Miami Beach who was not convicted of one instance of bribery, but 41 instances of bribery. In Tampa, the county commission was so corrupt that there wasn't one [commissioner] who was convicted of bribery; there were three -- at the same time!

Chris: You also had the story of the Florida Senate President. I really like this one.

Alan: Yes, Mike Haridopolos, sure.

Chris: So tell me his story.

Alan: Well, his story is that he wrote a "book report" on the state legislature. It was never published, in any form, anywhere at all. The state paid him $152,000 [for that], which he never was punished for. A lot of the worst corruption in Florida goes completely unpunished.

Chris: Wait, he was unpunished for his $152,000 "book report"?

Alan: No, he wasn't punished for that. And look at what the Governor has done. He owns the largest chain of health clinics in the state, so what does he do? He shuts down all of the state's public health clinics, so there is no competition. He turns Medicaid over to privatization. And then, to top it all off, he requires state employees to get drug-tested. Tell me, where are they going to go, to get those drug tests? To his company.

Chris: I see why you were such an effective attorney, Congressman. You make a persuasive case, thanks. . . . So, Congressman Grayson, part of the reason that I was skeptical of Florida, although you made a good case, is that I have never [thought about Florida that way.] I think about Rhode Island, I think about Louisiana, I think about New Jersey, I think about Illinois as places that have a traditional boss politics, in which they have patronage machines. Those patronage machines tend to control both fundraising and jobs and party machine [candidates] who get slated. That is a kind of almost feudal system, in which lords control their turf. I don't think of Florida that way. Am I wrong not to think of Florida that way?

Alan: Well, on the state level, it's clearly a one-party system, and the Republican Party in Florida is hopelessly corrupt. They handed out [Republican Party] credit cards to all of their top officials. Corporate contributions to the Republican Party of Florida ended up paying for their personal expenses – including, for instance, a back waxing for Senator Rubio [R-FL]. I can give you countless other examples, and none of this ever gets punished. The reason you don't think of Florida [as often] is because so much of it never gets punished. Why is that? It's because the [State] Ethics Committee is appointed by the Governor, so they are not going to do anything to the Governor. The Ethics Committee isn't allowed to bring any charges; it's not even allowed to perform independent investigations. And, if a citizen brings a charge of corruption against a public official of the State of Florida and can't prove it by clear and convincing evidence, then the citizen, the informant, has to pay the attorney's fees of the official.

Chris: Well that's pretty good. Everyone, very quickly: [give me a] ten-second one-line pitch for your state.

Darryl Isherwood [for New Jersey]: We have Boardwalk Empire, an HBO series devoted to New Jersey corruption and "Nucky" Thompson.

Chris: You definitely win pop-culture references. Tracie Washington?

Tracie Washington [for Louisiana]: I can't top back waxing. I just can't.

Chris: (Laughter) Congressman Grayson? Anything other than back waxing?

Alan: Yeah, we have more corrupt public officials than alligators. And that's saying a lot.

Chris: I'm going to declare this tournament to close to call. . . . Thank you very much. I actually learned a tremendous amount in that segment. Thank you.

Congressman Alan Grayson – incorruptible. Authentic. Sincere. Straightforward. Above-board. Fair and square. On the level. Laying it on the line. Telling it like it is. What you see is what you get.

True blue.

To see the video, or to make a contribution, click here.

Back

Q. Is Journalism a Felony? A. No.

For several months, journalist Glenn Greenwald has reeled off one blockbuster article after another concerning the National Security Agency's pervasive domestic and international electronic spying programs. For instance, Greenwald broke the story that the NSA receives a report on every single telephone call that anyone makes in America. This has incited the spying industrial complex and its allies to launch vicious attacks against Greenwald. For instance in June, on Fox News, Rep. Peter King (R-NY) called for Greenwald's criminal prosecution. Luckily for Greenwald, although he is an American citizen, he lives in Brazil, and the newspaper that circulated his reports is based in England.

Congressman Alan Grayson, wanting to learn more about the scope of domestic spying, has invited Greenwald to provide a briefing to Congress in Washington, D.C. Given the threats to prosecute him, Greenwald has been reluctant to do so in person. So one month ago, Congressman Grayson sent a letter to Attorney General Holder, asking whether the AG would prosecute Greenwald if Greenwald came to D.C. to testify. Yesterday, we learned the answer. First, we'll show you Congessman Grayson's letter, and then we'll share the AG's response:

October 10, 2013

Attorney General Eric Holder
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001

Dear Attorney General Holder:

My office has been in contact with Glenn Greenwald, a journalist for The Guardian, who has reported on previously undisclosed data-collection methods and privacy breaches by the National Security Agency. His reports have been based on information that he received from whistleblowers in his capacity as a journalist, not from personal knowledge. I asked Mr. Greenwald to meet in Washington, D.C. with me and my staff as part of my official duties. He is reluctant to do so, because he fears detention, and potentially prosecution, by the Department of Justice or other U.S. authorities.

Mr. Greenwald, a United States citizen currently living in Brazil, has been publicly attacked by Members of Congress such as Representative Peter King, who on multiple occasions has called for his arrest merely because of his reporting as a journalist on the NSA. The Chairs of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees, Senator Dianne Feinstein and Representative Mike Rogers, have appeared to echo this threat, as have prominent foreign-policy commentators such as Alan Dershowitz and Marc Thiessen.

Moreover, activists and persons connected with this summer's revelations about our country's surveillance programs have already experienced government encounters that smack of intimidation. Mr. Greenwald's partner, David Miranda, was detained for nine hours at London Heathrow Airport in August by U.K. law enforcement officials invoking the United Kingdom's Terrorism Act. Baraa Shiban, a Yemeni anti-drone activist, was similarly detained at London Gatwick on September 24th and repeatedly questioned about his political work and opinions. Our own government, as detailed in documents reported by Mr. Greenwald, portrays political opposition to drone attacks and similar activism as part of "propaganda campaigns" by America's "adversaries." Therefore, Mr. Greenwald is concerned about similar difficulties should he return here.

I regard this as regrettable, because: (1) the commission of journalism is not a crime; (2) on the contrary, it is protected explicitly under the First Amendment; and (3) Mr. Greenwald's reports regarding these subjects have, in fact, informed me, other Members of Congress, and the general public of serious, pervasive violations of law and constitutional rights committed by agents of the government.
Bearing in mind that Mr. Greenwald is a citizen of the United States, please let me know: (1) whether the Department of Justice intends to bring charges against Mr. Greenwald, and (2) should Mr. Greenwald seek to enter the United States, whether the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, or any other office of the federal government intends to detain, question, arrest, or prosecute Mr. Greenwald, or to monitor or interfere in any way with his entry into or movement within the United States.

Sincerely,

Alan Grayson
Member of Congress

Congressman Grayson's letter prompted the Washington Post to ask AG Holder these questions. Yesterday, the Washington Post reported on the answers:

[Attorney General] Holder indicated that the Justice Department is not planning to prosecute former Guardian reporter Glenn Greenwald, one of the journalists who received documents from Snowden and has written a series of articles based on the leaked material. Greenwald, an American citizen who lives in Brazil, has said he is reluctant to come to the United States because he fears detention and possible prosecution.

"Unless information that has not come to my attention is presented to me, what I have indicated in my testimony before Congress is that any journalist who's engaged in true journalistic activities is not going to be prosecuted by this Justice Department," Holder said.

"I certainly don't agree with what Greenwald has done," Holder said. "In some ways, he blurs the line between advocate and journalist. But on the basis of what I know now, I'm not sure there is a basis for prosecution of Greenwald."

So there you have it – thanks in part to Congressman Grayson's inquiry, we know what is on AG Eric Holder's mind if journalist Glenn Greenwald comes to the United States to inform Congress about domestic spying. Congressman Grayson's view on this is simple: investigative journalism is not a crime.

The postscript for this episode is Greenwald's response to Holder's statement, also from the Washington Post report:

Greenwald said he welcomed the statement but remains cautious. "That this question is even on people's minds is a rather grim reflection of the Obama administration's record on press freedoms," he said in an e-mail. "It is a positive step that the Attorney General expressly recognizes that journalism is not and should not be a crime in the United States, but given this administration's poor record on press freedoms, I'll consult with my counsel on whether one can or should rely on such caveat-riddled oral assertions about the government's intentions."

One way or another, Congressman Grayson will continue to seek Greenwald's testimony regarding the scope of domestic spying, so that Congress and the American People can hear the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Which is one more reason why Congressman Grayson deserves your support.

To show your support for our Congressman With Guts, click here.

Back

Thank You

This is the halfway point between Congressional elections. In our last two notes, we looked forward, and we asked for your support for the November 2014 election, 52 Tuesdays from now. Now I want to look back, and thank you and everyone else for your support in the November 2012 election, 52 Tuesdays ago. 

According to information from the House Historian, our election last year was the biggest comeback in the history of the U.S. House of Representatives. We won by 25 points, just two years after losing in the general election by 18 points. That's a swing of 43 points.

[Attention trivia lovers: the old record was held by Rep. John Rousselot (R-CA). He was defeated for reelection in 1962, by seven points. Eight years later, the Congressman in the neighboring district passed away. That was a heavily Republican district. Rousselot ran against another former Congressman in the primary to fill that vacancy, he squeaked by in that race, and then he won the general election by 33 points – a 40-point swing after eight years, in an entirely different district.]

Moreover, last year you helped us to overcome the utter sliming that the Right Wing had launched against us in 2010. We will never forget that the head of the National Republican Congressional Committee said that I was the Republican's #1 target for 2010. That Glenn Beck said that he didn't care what happened in any other 2010 race, as long as I lost. That Sarah Palin came to Central Florida more than once to campaign against me, and called me a "jackwagon" (reading that from her palm, apparently). That our district became a laboratory for what dirty tricks the special interests could get away with after the Citizens United ruling, running $5½ million of attack ads against me -- more "independent expenditures" than in any other House race, anywhere in the country, at any time ever, until then. That the average person in Orlando saw 70 vicious and disgusting negative ads against me, paid for with sewer money from the Koch Brothers, the health insurance companies and the Chamber of Commerce.

Two years later, in 2012 – poof! – all gone. Instead, we won a historic victory – thanks to you.

And a recent analysis showed that of the 435 Members of the House of Representatives, I am the only one – the only one! – who raised most of his 2012 campaign contributions from small donors. That makes me feel special. And that makes you special – very special.

So let me do what I probably should do more often – just say thanks. Thank you for the opportunity to serve. Thank you for helping me to promote justice, equality and peace. Thank you for your support.

Courage,

Rep. Alan Grayson

P.S. As I write this, the pledges from supporters like you have put us at a remarkable $99,255 in sustaining revenue. (I've printed out a copy of the ActBlue page, in case anyone wants to see it.) We were hoping to reach $100,000. It would be wonderful if someone pledged $20.14 per month toward the 2014 race, and put us over the top. Maybe you?

Back

Please Help. Seriously.

I don't want to nag you. But I need to make a point.

In my last note, I said these three things: (1) The 2014 election is exactly one year -- 52 Tuesdays -- away. (2) We have to start preparing for it now. (3) The best way for contributors to show their support is to sign up for monthly contributions to the campaign.

Since we're talking about the 2014 election, my suggestion was to sign up for monthly contributions of $20.14. If you're willing and able to contribute more, that's great. If you're willing, but unable, then please sign up to contribute something each month – even five dollars.

Some of us did this. Some of us didn't. So if you didn't, then I'm asking again. If you intend to support the Grayson for Congress 2014 campaign, please sign up now for monthly contributions. Be a "sustainer." That way, I won't have to tell you next October that we're $500,000 short, and we need it in the next 24 hours, or whatever.

Some of my colleagues say, "My most important contributors are the Koch Brothers." Others say, "My most important contributors are the corporate lobbyists – man, I love those $10,000 checks." I can't say that. The Koch Brothers spent $2 million to defeat me in 2010. Corporate lobbyists chipped in another $2.5 million. The Democratic Party gave me nothing. So what I say – all I can say – is this: "My most important contributor is YOU."

Please help our campaign, by signing up for monthly contributions. I'm counting on you.

We need your help. I need your help.

Courage,

Rep. Alan Grayson

Back

T-Minus One Year to Election Day -- And Counting

One of the most exciting things from my youth was the countdown to a space launch. T-minus two hours. Then t-minus one hour. T-minus ten minutes. T-minus one minute. 10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1 – lift off!

Today, we are t-minus one year to the 2014 election. And counting.

My job has many different parts to it. Legislating, oversight, organizing, constituent service, communication, grants coordinating and ombudsman work, to name a few. But one intrinsic part of the job is campaigning, because if I don't get reelected, then after my term is over, I can't do any of that other stuff. In fact, our efforts to win next year's campaign are already underway.

I already have three declared Republican opponents. They are campaigning hard. There may be more coming. We have to be prepared.

So I need your help. And with precisely one year to go until the election, I'm asking for your help in one particular way.

I'm asking for you to sign up for monthly contributions. Experience has shown that it's the most effective way that you can help.

It's the 2014 election, so sign up for $20.14 per month. That's a nice round number.

If you contribute $200 or more during an election cycle, the Federal Election Commission considers you a "large donor." So sign up for $20 or $20.14 or $25 per month, and bingo, by Election Day, you're a large donor. A big shot. Maybe not a Koch Brother, but still important.

If you could afford to contribute $50 each month, then by Election Day, that would be $600. That's enough to sign up more than 100 of our supporters to vote by mail – which is a good thing, because Election Day is on a Tuesday, and (funny thing) a lot of our supporters work on Tuesdays.

If you were willing and able to sign up for $500 per month, then by Election Day, you actually would exceed the legal contribution limit, which is $5200 between now and then. Our campaign would have to write a check to you, for a change – a refund check. Wouldn't that be awesome?

We call our monthly contributors "sustainers." Are you willing to sustain me? Sustain your Social Security, your Medicare, your privacy, your good government? Sustain justice, equality and peace?

Please sign up today to make monthly contributions to our campaign, and count down each month: 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 – VICTORY!

Pretty please, with sugar on top. It's the best way that you can help.

Courage,

Rep. Alan Grayson

Back

The Spying Industrial Complex

Here is Congressman Alan Grayson’s commentary on domestic surveillance, from Friday’s edition of the Guardian. Read the editorial, then share your thoughts at CongressmanWithGuts.com.

In the 1970s, Congressman Otis Pike of New York chaired a special congressional committee to investigate abuses by the American so-called "intelligence community" – the spies. After the investigation, Pike commented:

It took this investigation to convince me that I had always been told lies, to make me realize that I was tired of being told lies.

I'm tired of the spies telling lies, too.

Pike's investigation initiated one of the first congressional oversight debates for the vast and hidden collective of espionage agencies, including the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the National Security Agency (NSA). Before the Pike Commission, Congress was kept in the dark about them – a tactic designed to thwart congressional deterrence of the sometimes illegal and often shocking activities carried out by the "intelligence community". Today, we are seeing a repeat of this professional voyeurism by our nation's spies, on an unprecedented and pervasive scale.

Recently, the US House of Representatives voted on an amendment – offered by Representatives Justin Amash and John Conyers – that would have curbed the NSA's omnipresent and inescapable tactics. Despite furious lobbying by the intelligence industrial complex and its allies, and four hours of frantic and overwrought briefings by the NSA's General Keith Alexander, 205 of 422 Representatives voted for the amendment.

Though the amendment barely failed, the vote signaled a clear message to the NSA: We do not trust you. The vote also conveyed another, more subtle message: Members of Congress do not trust that the House Intelligence Committee is providing the necessary oversight. On the contrary, "oversight" has become "overlook".

Despite being a member of Congress possessing security clearance, I've learned far more about government spying on me and my fellow citizens from reading media reports than I have from "intelligence" briefings. If the vote on the Amash-Conyers amendment is any indication, my colleagues feel the same way. In fact, one long-serving conservative Republican told me that he doesn't attend such briefings anymore, because, "They always lie".

Many of us worry that Congressional Intelligence Committees are more loyal to the "intelligence community" that they are tasked with policing, than to the Constitution. And the House Intelligence Committee isn't doing anything to assuage our concerns.

I've requested classified information, and further meetings with NSA officials. The House Intelligence Committee has refused to provide either. Supporters of the NSA's vast ubiquitous domestic spying operation assure the public that members of Congress can be briefed on these activities whenever they want. Senator Saxby Chambliss says all a member of Congress needs to do is ask for information, and he'll get it. Well I did ask, and the House Intelligence Committee said "no", repeatedly. And virtually every other member not on the Intelligence Committee gets the same treatment.

Recently, a member of the House Intelligence Committee was asked at a town hall meeting, by his constituents, why my requests for more information about these programs were being denied. This member argued that I don't have the necessary level of clearance to obtain access for classified information. That doesn't make any sense; every member is given the same level of clearance.

There is no legal justification for imparting secret knowledge about the NSA's domestic surveillance activities only to the 20 members of the House Intelligence Committee. Moreover, how can the remaining 415 of us do our job properly, when we're kept in the dark – or worse, misinformed?

Edward Snowden's revelations demonstrate that the members of Congress, who are asked to authorize these programs, are not privy to the same information provided to junior analysts at the NSA, and even private contractors who sell services to foreign governments. The only time that these intelligence committees disclose classified information to us, your elected representatives, is when it serves the purposes of the "intelligence community".

As the country continues to debate the supposed benefits of wall-to-wall spying programs on each and every American, without probable cause, the spies, "intelligence community" and Congressional Intelligence Committees have a choice: will they begin sharing comprehensive information about these activities, so that elected public officials have the opportunity to make informed decisions about whether such universal snooping is necessary, or constitutional?

Or will they continue to obstruct our efforts to understand these programs, and force us to rely on information provided by whistleblowers who undertake substantial risks to disseminate this information about violations of our freedom in an increasingly hostile environment? And why do Generals Alexander and Clapper remain in office, when all the evidence points to them committing the felony of lying to Congress and the American people?

Representative Pike would probably say that rank-and-file representatives will never get the information we need from the House Intelligence Committee, because the spying industrial complex answers only to itself. After all, Pike, and many of the members of his special congressional committee, voted against forming it. As it is now constituted, the House Intelligence Committee will never decry, deny, or defy any spy. They see eye-to-eye, so they turn a blind eye. Which means that if we rely on them, we can kiss our liberty good-bye.

 

Back

Sciortino Condemned -- For Defending Social Security

I always thought that defending Social Security and Medicare was a good thing. But apparently, the corporate media doesn't agree with me. So the corporate media has dumped all over Congressional candidate Carl Sciortino – for defending Social Security and Medicare.

Earlier this year, as you may recall, there was a lot of nattering about cutting Social Security benefits by messing with the cost-of-living adjustment (COLA). I didn't like that. My philosophy is simple: If it ain't broke, don't break it. So I authored the Grayson-Takano letter, pledging to vote against any and every cut in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits. Almost 50 of my House colleagues joined me. We posted the same pledge at No-Cuts.com, and that helped us to deliver almost 3,000,000 petition signatures to the White House and to the House Speaker against earned benefit cuts.

Call me naïve, but I think that it's very important to let the voters know where every candidate stands. So I have encouraged Congressional candidates across the country to take the pledge, and promise to vote against earned benefit cuts.

Carl Sciortino is running to replace now-Senator Ed Markey in the U.S. House of Representatives. He did just that. Carl Sciortino promised to protect Social Security and Medicare from benefit cuts.

That pledge should have earned Sciortino applause. Instead, it earned him a nasty smack from the Boston Globe. By way of background, the Boston Globe is now owned by a Wall Street commodities and futures trader (but then again, what isn't?). Needless to say, Wall Street wants to privatize Social Security, and voucherize Medicare. So this week, the Boston Globe condemned Sciortino's staunch support for Social Security and Medicare, citing it as evidence that Sciortino lacks "maturity." (Excuse me, but isn't it precisely the "mature" ones among us who are most dependent on Social Security and Medicare?)

The Boston Globe chose to endorse a different candidate in Carl's race, on the theory that her stated willingness to cut Social Security and Medicare supposedly marked her as the "mature" candidate, even though this might be "disappointing to liberals." (Irony alert: the other candidate actually had pledged to a liberal group that she would not cut Social Security and Medicare, just before pledging to the Boston Globe that she would. So it appears that pandering and prevarication are the best marks of "maturity.")

The good voters of Massachusetts are about to choose between Carl Sciortino, a fierce defender of Social Security and Medicare, and another candidate who stands for I-don't-know-what. Shortly, one of these two candidates will be serving in the U.S. House of Representatives, and voting on our Social Security and our Medicare.

I think that we had better support Carl Sciortino. Right now. Because our future is at stake.

Last call. Tuesday is Election Day in Carl’s district.

Courage,

Alan Grayson

P.S. Share this with your friends on https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Carl+Sciortino+supports+Social+Sec... ">Twitter and Facebook.

Back

The Speech the Republicans Wouldn't Let You Hear

Ten days ago, the Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives shut down the federal government.

Two days ago, a pollster identified things that now are more popular than Congress. Here are some of them: Dog poop. Zombies. Witches. Hemorrhoids.

Yesterday, another pollster measured the GOP approval rating. Answer: 28%. No major political party has ever seen an approval rating this low.

I took to the House Floor to tell the Republicans exactly what you think of Congress. I pointed out that according to scientific polling, Americans think more of dog poop than Congress. And the Speaker of the House wouldn't let me finish.

You heard that right. When I carried your voice into Congress, the Republicans tried to shut me up. First they shut down the government. Now, they're telling America to shut up.

Despite their attempt to silence us, my speech was all over the media - from the Daily Show, to MSNBC's All In With Chris Hayes, to the Huffington Post, to Raw Story, to Gawker. Even right-wing propaganda organs like The Blaze and Weasel Zippers covered it. And now the polls are showing the Republicans might lose their majority in the U.S. House in next year's election.

Let's show them that when they shut down the government, we take back the House.

The GOP now knows that they're in trouble, and only their sewer money can save them. This means that every dollar we raise scares the GOP, and makes it more likely that they will fold on the government shutdown.

With every dollar, with every contribution that you make, I am going to work to take the House back for the Democrats. And I know I can count on you. Because I'm just saying what you're thinking. Which is that Congress shouldn't be less popular than dog poop.

Let's do this together.

Courage,

Alan Grayson

Candidate for Congress (D-FL)

Contributions to the Committee to Elect Alan Grayson
are not tax deductible.

Paid for by the Committee to Elect Alan Grayson