Washed It!

So long, “Sesame Street.” And probably “NewsHour,” “Antiques Roadshow,” “Nova,” “Masterpiece” and ” Frontline” too, at least for many Los Angeles TV viewers.

After months of fractious negotiations, KCET, the flagship public broadcasting station in the Los Angeles market for 40 years, abruptly announced Friday that it would exit the PBS network effective Jan. 1. The move, which caught PBS officials in Washington by surprise, marks the first time a major-market station has left the network and will make KCET the largest independent public TV station in the nation.

“This is not a decision we made lightly,” Al Jerome, the station’s president and chief executive, said in a statement.

“We have been in discussions with PBS for over three years about the need to address challenges that are unique to our market as well as our station.”

In a follow-up interview, Jerome said the station would assemble its own programming, a plan that would take roughly two years to implement fully. KCET is expected to keep airing locally produced public-affairs shows such as “SoCal Connected.” Last month it announced a new Sunday-night movie show hosted by KTLA entertainment reporter Sam Rubin. Jerome said the station was also exploring news, documentaries and other programming from providers in Japan, Canada and other countries as well as the Hollywood community.

But Jerome acknowledged that some longtime viewers face the immediate prospect of losing favorite, nationally recognized shows. “There are going to be some disruptions,” he said. According to Jerome, KCET would remain a nonprofit enterprise mostly reliant on funds from viewers and corporate donors; the station’s FCC license does not permit it to become a commercial, for-profit outlet supported entirely by the traditional 30-second spot.

Station officials have complained they could not afford to pay member dues that rocketed 40% after KCET in 2005 won a landmark series of grants from oil giant BP and other sources totaling $50 million for two series aimed at preschoolers. Those grants came with the stipulation the money could not be used for paying dues to PBS. But PBS has defended the dues structure as necessary to maintaining quality programming and argued KCET was asking for special treatment.

Talks aimed at ending the impasse have gone nowhere. The door is still open for KCET to remain tied to PBS through a proposed consortium with Southern California secondary public stations: Orange County’s KOCE as well as KVCR in San Bernardino and KLCS, which is licensed to the Los Angeles Unified School District. The group would share certain programming, fundraising and marketing functions to save money and operate more efficiently. But Jerome said KCET would still remain independent under that scenario. It’s also possible that the station and PBS could reach an 11th-hour settlement, but those hopes seem to be growing dimmer with each passing day.

Friday’s move left PBS officials scrambling. In a sign of how badly relations have frayed with the dissident station, a network spokeswoman was not aware that KCET was about to send out a news release announcing the split until a reporter called to ask about it.

“PBS was notified today of KCET’s intention to withdraw its membership,” PBS said in a statement. “At issue were KCET’s repeated requests that it be allowed to operate as a PBS member station without abiding by PBS policies and paying the corresponding dues.

“PBS’ goal is to have a financially stable service in the Los Angeles market,” the network added. “PBS fully supports the idea of a Southern California consortium of stations and continues discussion with KOCE, KVCR and KLCS, PBS’ additional stations serving the Los Angeles market.”

Their divorce could wind up being painful for both KCET and PBS — not to mention local viewers.

The station faces the challenge of trying to raise funds without invoking name brands such as “Sesame Street” and “Antiques Roadshow.” Such famous PBS series are frequently cited as reasons to donate during ubiquitous on-air pledge drives. Without such brands, KCET may find it much harder to persuade viewers to open their wallets, especially during a time of economic uncertainty and reduced corporate giving.

However, KCET’s prospects for viability could greatly improve if KCET secures funding from the federal government. In a statement released Friday by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which receives Congressional funding and distributes it to public media, KCET will still be eligible for federal monies as long as it is — as it plans to be — an FCC-licensed educational television station, providing noncommercial and general interest programming.

In the meantime, the loss of its largest West Coast station casts a dark cloud over the future of PBS, at a time when many TV analysts are already questioning the relevance of a federally mandated broadcasting entity that dates from the 1960s.

“PBS certainly does not play the essential role it once did in the nation’s media landscape,” Jeffrey McCall, a media professor at DePauw University wrote in an e-mail. “For years, PBS provided things that couldn’t be had from the traditional networks. Public affairs, educational programs, dance, fitness, crafts, kids shows, documentaries and all that were found on your local PBS affiliate and perhaps no place else.

“Now, with cable outlets, not to mention the Internet, the public doesn’t rely on PBS for such fare,” McCall added. “Those multichannel entities are rooted in corporate vision, but they only need a niche audience to make a go of it these days. Not to mention that PBS has taken on some of the corporate vision itself, with lengthy, enhanced underwriting announcements, corporate partnerships, etc.”

Now that KCET has taken the plunge as an independent station — PBS will have to write a new chapter for its network in Southern California.

Local attorney Gordon Bava, chairman of KCET’s board of directors, said in a statement: “While separating from the PBS mother ship is daunting, the potential of providing a media platform for the creative, scientific, and cultural communities of Southern California to create informative and entertaining non-commercial programming with a fresh perspective is very exciting.”

scott.collins@latimes.com
Los Angeles affiliate KCET is leaving the PBS network

Democrats and their allies, moving to counter millions of dollars flowing to Republican campaigns from groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, have accused the international business organization of using foreign money to influence American elections.

The effort to paint conservative political groups as fronts for multinational corporations and foreign billionaires gathered steam this week after an affiliate of the liberal-leaning Center for American Progress charged that the chamber was using funds from foreign corporations to finance its political operations in Washington.

Foreign spending in U.S. elections is against the law. Tita Freeman, vice president of communications at the chamber, called the Center for American Progress report “unfounded and completely erroneous.” The foreign companies cited in the report “pay nominal dues” that “do not support U.S. chamber political activities,” Freeman said.

The liberal group MoveOn.org planned a rally outside the chamber’s Washington headquarters Thursday to bring attention to the charges.

The issue of campaign fundraising is casting a shadow over this year’s races after a Supreme Court ruling in January allowed unlimited campaign spending by corporations, labor unions and interest groups — some of which are not required to disclose their funding sources.

Corporations and interest groups, operating outside official political party committees, have provided a potent source of cash for Republicans. Democratic-allied groups have attempted to match the spending but lag far behind.

The liberal organization Think Progress said on its website that an investigation found that dues and fees collected from the chamber’s overseas chapters and foreign business members goes into the same account used to fund its political activities.

Freeman called the allegation “an attempt to silence businesspeople, to silence those who support free enterprise, and an intentional diversion in advance of the midterm elections.”

The chamber and two new groups cofounded by Republican strategist Karl Rove — American Crossroads and its affiliate, Crossroads GPS — are expected to spend more than $100 million on media campaigns in the final month before election day. Allies of Democrats have attempted to counter the overwhelming budgets of right-leaning groups with their own meager but pointed ad buys.

On Wednesday, Campaign Money Watch, a Democratic-leaning group that advocates for public financing of elections, took out a $750,000 ad to oppose the Republican candidate for governor in Colorado. The move came a day after American Crossroads spent about the same on ads opposing the Democratic incumbent.

Also Wednesday, the National Education Assn. committed to spending $15 million this cycle and began airing television ads for Democratic incumbents in Arizona and Ohio.

But with less than one month to go, the big money still trended in Republicans’ favor.

On Tuesday, Crossroads GPS spent more than $1 million on advertising against Alexi Giannoulias, the Democratic candidate for President Obama’s former Senate seat in Illinois, according to records filed with the Federal Election Commission.

Meanwhile, two nonpartisan groups that advocate stricter campaign finance controls urged the Internal Revenue Service this week to investigate Crossroads GPS. The Campaign Legal Center and Democracy 21 said the Rove group is organized in a way that “allows its donors to evade the public disclosure requirements” that otherwise would apply if the organization was registered differently.

kim.geiger@latimes.com
Liberal groups say foreign funds aid Republicans

The new Assembly speaker’s promise was unequivocal: Decisions about how billions upon billions of California taxpayer dollars are spent would no longer be made in private meetings or in the middle of the night.

“The budget will not be written behind closed doors,” Speaker John P

Thousands of activists from groups that support the Democratic Party gathered for a march and rally on the National Mall on Saturday in a bid to rejuvenate the enthusiasm of more liberal voters and stave off an expected GOP comeback in next month’s midterm elections.

Organizers said the rally included more than 400 groups representing black, gay and lesbian, labor, environmental and civil rights activists who gathered at the steps of the Lincoln Memorial for the “One Nation Working Together” rally. People from all 50 states attended the rally demanding improvements on jobs, justice and education.

“We bailed out the banks, we bailed out the insurance companies, now it’s time to bail out the American people. We need to re-build the infrastructure and provide jobs, and savings for the American people,” Rev. Al Sharpton, civil rights activist, told the crowd.

After months of planning, the first groups of supporters arrived Saturday and festivities stretched well into afternoon. About 50 speakers and entertainers spoke at the rally including civil rights activists Rev. Jesse Jackson and Harry Belafonte, NAACP President Benjamin T. Jealous, and AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka.

“For the past two years President Obama has had to put up with the word no. Forty people, 40 people in the United States Senate have held down the working man of America. Forty Republicans have decided to say no.” liberal television and radio show host Ed Shultz said.

The progressive groups also focused on energizing democrats during the election season in which republicans and Tea Party activist continue gain momentum. It remains an open question of whether or not group organizers and activist can re-ignite democratic enthusiasm by November.

Laurie Christmas, traveled by bus from Toledo, Ohio to attended the rally. Christmas carried a sign that read “Health care. Not war fare,” on one side and a plea for green energy on the other. Christmas said she was excited to be surround by progressive thinkers but said she still has doubts about sparking progressive enthusiasm for the upcoming elections.

“Where are all the people who represented Obama in 2008,” Christmas asked as she pointed down the Mall. “There should be more people here.”

Cara MacDonald , a 21-year-old political science student from the University of Mary Washington in Fredericksburg, Va, sported her “I love pro-choice boys” T-shirt and said that even though democrats maybe frustrated this election, she does not believe they will shy away from the polls this November.

“It’s hard when people are riding the anti-Obama train,” MacDonald said. “But when democrats get people out to the polls, democrats win.”

The rally in part is a response to conservative commentator Glenn Beck’s “Restoring Honor” rally in August that drew thousands to hear a call to return to American values of liberty and faith. However, organizers said the “One Nation” rally had been planned since April.

A request to stop the One Nation rally was rejected by a Washington D.C. judge on Friday, according to Denise Gray-Felder, spokeswomen for. The request was filed by National Events, one of the companies that helped organized the Beck rally.

Beck has criticized the liberal response, in part because he said it includes members of socialist groups.
Terry Cardwell, 56 of Rome, N.Y., said she viewed the Beck rally as a “white revival,” and on Saturday she carried a sign that read, “Fear of diversity makes a bitter cup of tea.”

“I’m here to support what we started in 2008,” Cardwell said. “We can’t go back to what we’ve already had.”

jordan.steffen@latimes.com

Civil rights, labor groups rally on National Mall

Gubernatorial candidates Meg Whitman and Jerry Brown tangled in a blistering dispute Saturday over Whitman’s employment of an illegal immigrant housekeeper as they met for the campaign’s first and only Spanish-language debate.

The most intense exchange of the debate, held at Cal State Fresno, came when the moderator asked Whitman about the revelations earlier this week that she had employed Nicandra Diaz Santillan for nine years before firing her in 2009. Whitman has denied knowing that Diaz Santillan was undocumented until just before the dismissal.

Whitman turned to face Brown and accused Brown of being behind Santillan’s emergence.

“Jerry, you should be ashamed,” she said, turning to Brown and shaking her finger. “You and your surrogates put her deportation at risk. You put her out there. You should be ashamed for sacrificing Nicky Diaz on the altar of your political ambitions.”

Brown fired back, denying any involvement and accusing Whitman of failing to take responsibility.

“Let’s be sympathetic and let’s really empathize with the millions of people who are in the shadows and you want to keep them in the shadows and now you’re trying to evade responsibility,” he said. “Don’t run for governor if you can’t stand up on your own two feet and say, ‘Hey I made a mistake, I’m sorry, let’s go on from here.’ You have blamed her, blamed me, blamed the left, blamed the unions but you don’t take accountability.”

Whitman said she fulfilled her obligations as an employer and fired the housekeeper when the woman disclosed her undocumented status last year.

The 60-minute debate was much more confrontational, and their accusations much more personal than their first meeting, which took place Tuesday night in Davis. Saturday’s debate was sponsored by Univision, the Fresno Bee, the Fresno Area Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Cal State Fresno and the city of Fresno.

It was filmed at midday Saturday, with questions posed in Spanish and simultaneously translated for the candidates. It was to be aired later, after Spanish voiceovers were added to the candidates’ responses.

The meeting was plagued by technical difficulties. Immediately after the exchange about the housekeeper, the translation system stopped working, and both candidates were taken off stage for several minutes and placed in separate holding areas.

Unemployment, home foreclosures, education and the water shortage in the Central Valley also played prominent roles in the clash, but illegal immigration provided the sharpest contrast between the candidates, with Brown supporting a path to citizenship for undocumented workers and Whitman opposing one. Brown repeatedly accused Whitman of “talking out of both sides of her mouth” as she appeals to Latinos. Whitman stood by her proposals, including a guest-worker program, and emphasized instead her plans to create jobs and improve education, two areas of considerable interest to Latinos since the economy has disproportionately affected them.

Latinos are an emerging political force in California, representing 21% of the electorate, compared with 10% two decades ago. In 2008, they made up 18% of general-election voters. Republicans have long seen an opportunity to regain ground because many Latinos share some of the core values of the party, such as social conservatism, and are small-business owners. But until now GOP candidates have lacked the resources to make an all-out push for their votes.

Whitman, who has put $119 million of her own money into her campaign, has launched an aggressive outreach effort, flooding Spanish-language radio and TV and opening neighborhood offices in cities with large Latino populations. Brown, on the other hand, ran a bare-bones campaign through the summer, relying on labor unions to carry his message until last month when he began airing his own ads.

michael.mishak@latimes.com
Brown, Whitman tangle over illegal immigration in debate

President Obama announced Friday that Rahm Emanuel, his chief of staff and a fearsome White House operative, is resigning his post and would be replaced with another senior advisor.

Emanuel, who is planning to run for mayor of Chicago, departs 20 months into Obama’s presidency and leaves as one part of a staff shuffle that will bring a significant turnover at the top levels of the White House policy and economic team.

Senior presidential advisor David Axelrod is planning to leave the White House next year to begin preparations for Obama’s 2012 reelection drive, and economic advisor Lawrence Summers is quitting the White House to return to Harvard University.

Obama named senior advisor Pete Rouse to serve as Emanuel’s replacement, at least for now.

Emanuel’s departure had been expected since Mayor Richard Daley announced in September that he would not run for reelection. Obama lavished praise on Emanuel for his work at the White House.

“He just brings an unmatched level of energy and commitment to every single thing he does,” Obama said after embracing Emanuel before a cheering White House assembly.

Possible candidates for the permanent job include Thomas E. Donilon, a deputy national security advisor; Robert Bauer, White House counsel; Tom Daschle, a former Senate Democratic leader; and John Podesta, a former chief of staff to President Clinton.

cparsons@latimes.com
Obama makes it official, sends off top aide Emanuel

The candidates vying to be California’s next governor had their first face-to-face debate Tuesday evening, a polite but contentious exchange in which Republican Meg Whitman and Democrat Jerry Brown largely stuck to their campaign stump scripts, questioning each other’s fitness to lead the state and accusing their opponent of being beholden to campaign contributors.

Whitman repeatedly hammered Brown for his union ties, saying he would be unable to renegotiate pension contracts after labor unions spent millions of dollars propping up his candidacy.

“He will bring people together — it will be a meeting of all of the special interests and the unions who are there collecting IOUs from the campaign they have funded,” she said before 750 audience members in the Mondavi Center for the Performing Arts at UC Davis. “I will not owe anything to anyone and I will do what is right for the people of California.”

Brown countered that Whitman has received $25 million from wealthy contributors who would directly benefit from her plan to eliminate the state capital gains tax, which he said would blow a $5-billion hole in the state budget.

“This is a little bit like the kettle calling the pot black,” he said. “That $5 billion comes right out of the general fund…. It’s from schools, from kids, from teachers … to the most powerful and big campaign contributors.”

Brown and Whitman are locked in a tight race, which is remarkable because of Whitman’s record-breaking spending and Democrats‘ double-digit voter registration advantage in California. Interest in their first matchup was intense, with more than 130 journalists covering the event, serving outlets as far away as China, Germany and Japan. A couple hundred protesters milled outside.

The most amusing exchange occurred when a moderator noted that Brown twice ran for president when he was governor previously and asked what would prevent him from doing so again.

“Age,” Brown said. Then he grinned and continued: “Hell, if I was younger, you know I’d be running again.”

But “I now have a wife, I come home at night, I don’t try to close down the bars in Sacramento like I used to do when I was governor of California. I’m going to spend more time in Sacramento and get it done,” he said. “So don’t worry about that; I’m in for the duration here.”

Much of the exchange focused on which candidate is best prepared to fix the state’s flawed government and to spur economic growth and job creation — the billionaire former corporate chief who says her business experience will help right California, or the longtime politician who says his decades in public service mean he alone can bring together the state’s dysfunctional legislators.

Brown said he thought long and hard before deciding to run, and chose to do so because he believes his political experience could help the state weather its current hardships.

“I care a great deal about public service. I think it’s honorable. I’ve lived in this state all my life, I love it, I voted here all my life,” he said. And “God willing,” he added, he would die in California.

Whitman responded that shaking up the status quo takes a new approach.

“My view is if we’re going to change the direction of the state, we have to do it very differently,” she said. “My approach is anchored in focus. I want to do three things really well to restore the faith of the people in California can have in their government.” She said she wanted to cut government spending, create jobs and fix schools.

They also discussed immigration, with Brown favoring a path to citizenship for those in the country illegally and Whitman opposing. And Whitman reiterated her apology for not voting for much of her adult life.

The meeting, sponsored by Capital Public Radio, NBC’s KCRA-TV in Sacramento, the Sacramento Bee and UC Davis, was the first of three debates scheduled before the November election. The next one is Saturday in Fresno.

seema.mehta@latimes.com

Brown, Whitman go head-to-head in first debate

The day after Jesse Kelly won the Republican primary in Arizona’s 8th Congressional District, Democratic incumbent Gabrielle Giffords went on the air with a lacerating attack. Noting that Kelly said he ultimately wanted to eliminate Social Security, Giffords’ television ad warned that Kelly “is a risk we can’t afford.”

Kelly, a construction manager with no political experience, had made the mistake of venturing into the mine-strewn politics of Social Security. No matter that he said he would preserve benefits for current retirees. The fact that he once described it as “the biggest pyramid scheme in history” gave his rival the equivalent of cannon fodder in a district where nearly one-fifth of the population is older than 65.

Kelly is now running his own ad vowing to “honor our commitment to seniors,” trying to fend off a line of assault that Democrats are stepping up throughout the country. It’s one of the few consistent themes in Democratic campaign commercials in a year when the party has otherwise eschewed a national message.

Accusing Republicans of wanting to do away with Social Security is a well-worn trope for Democrats. But a slew of “tea party”-backed candidates who have called for privatizing or eliminating the program have given Democrats fresh ammunition at a time when they are on the defensive about healthcare reform and the economic stimulus.

The strategy allows Democrats to link their rivals to former President George W. Bush, who sought to allow younger workers to invest a portion of their Social Security taxes in the stock market.

“And because it has also become a rallying cry among some of the tea party movement … it’s an indicator of how far to the right and how extreme a position the Republican candidates are taking,” said Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which has devoted the majority of its spots to slamming House GOP candidates on the topic.

Republicans, however, complain that their rivals are distorting their position.

“There have been numerous fact-checks and editorials calling out Democrats for their Social Security attacks,” said Paul Lindsay, spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee. “Democrats are desperately trying to scare seniors.”

“This is what a Democrat says when they’re losing an argument,” said Grover Norquist, president of the conservative Americans for Tax Reform. “If they’re saying this, it means they don’t have anything else to say.”

Nevertheless, Norquist advises GOP candidates to steer clear of Social Security on the campaign trail: “It’s too easy to demagogue.”

Indeed, it’s a testament to the political thorniness of the subject that most Republicans are strenuously avoiding it now that the primaries have passed. While Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) proposed personal retirement accounts for younger workers in his “Roadmap for America’s Future” economic plan this year, the GOP “Pledge to America” released last week does not address how to reform Social Security, whose outlays will regularly exceed its revenue beginning in 2016, the Congressional Budget Office estimates.

But Democrats are still feeding off comments made by their GOP rivals earlier in the year. In Nevada, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid weaves it into nearly every spot he runs against Republican Sharron Angle, who has backed away from earlier statements that she would phase out Social Security. A commercial for Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) includes footage of GOP rival Ken Buck calling Social Security “a horrible policy,” words Buck later said he regretted.

A commercial for Rep. Baron P. Hill (D-Ind.) spotlights a clip of GOP challenger Todd Young calling the program “a Ponzi scheme.” And a new ad by Democratic challenger Tarryl Clark argues that Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) views seniors as addicts, noting that she said she wants to “wean everybody off” Social Security.

“In the past, the Democrats had to strain and work hard to convey the risk of a Republican victory to Social Security,” said Lawrence Jacobs, a political science professor at the University of Minnesota who studies the program. “This year, it’s low-hanging fruit … because there are prominent Republicans running for the Senate and House who have very publicly and clearly raised questions about future of Social Security.”

But in some races, Democrats have taken more generic comments by GOP candidates as evidence of their antipathy to the entitlement. In Wisconsin, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has run three ads asserting that former prosecutor Sean Duffy, the GOP nominee for an open House seat, supports a plan to privatize Social Security. “Sean Duffy may not be worried about his retirement security, but the rest of us are,” stated one, featuring images of the onetime star of MTV’s “The Real World” climbing into a purple SUV.

As evidence, the committee cited Duffy’s endorsement of Ryan’s “Roadmap” plan. But Duffy has never explicitly voiced support for personal accounts, and on his campaign website he states, “I have not and will not endorse privatizing Social Security.” The Democrats’ campaign committee said Duffy was merely trying to backtrack.

It remains to be seen whether the Democratic fusillade will pay off for them at the ballot box. Evan Tracey, president of Campaign Media Analysis Group, a division of Kantar Media that tracks political advertising, said the party was hitting Social Security particularly hard in this cycle because the passage of healthcare reform took away one of their traditional critiques of the GOP.

“The Democratic message is — let’s face it — fear-based and designed to get seniors worried about their Social Security check,” he said. “That’s as common as Republicans calling Democrats liberals. I don’t know if anybody has presented a real argument that’s going to connect with voters.”

matea.gold@latimes.com
Democrats campaign on GOP threats to Social Security

By announcing major changes in his economic team ahead of the midterm elections, President Obama is hoping to galvanize a listless Democratic base that has been unimpressed with the administration’s efforts to ease unemployment and buoy the still-troubled housing market.

The two key moves — Lawrence Summers’ exit as top economic advisor and Elizabeth Warren’s ascendance as a consumer protection czar — are widely viewed as overtures to liberal Democrats, a voting bloc that must turn out in large numbers if the party is to stave off deep losses in the Nov. 2 congressional elections.

“Larry Summers was never that popular with the base, and this president is desperately trying to mobilize the base between now and November,” said Stephen Wayne, a government professor at Georgetown University.

“Elizabeth Warren coming and Larry Summers going, these are moves designed to placate the Democratic base and mobilize it as we approach the election,” Wayne said.

At the same time, administration officials insist Obama does not intend a broad retreat from his economic policies.

“The change in personnel is not going to affect the course that we’re on,” said Jared Bernstein, chief economic advisor to Vice President Joe Biden. “We’re going to build on the momentum that the policies have helped to create.”

Indeed, there is little else Obama can do to lower the jobless rate, reduce home foreclosures or improve growth before the November elections. The economy moves too slowly for that, and so does Congress.

On Thursday, for example, congressional Democrats indicated that they might put off a crucial decision on whether to extend temporary, Bush-era tax cuts until after the November election.

Obama announced this week that Summers would be leaving at the end of the year, the third member of his economic team to make departure plans public in recent weeks. Summers had long planned to return to Harvard, but announcing the move now is seen as giving Obama a political boost ahead of the elections.

A week ago, Obama appointed Warren to set up the new federal agency charged with protecting consumers from abuses by banks, credit card companies and other financial firms. She also joined the White House economic team.

Both Summers and Warren evoke strong emotions among Democrats.

Summers is loathed by many progressives, who see him as tied to Wall Street interests. At the same time, the left praised the arrival of Warren, hailing the Harvard law professor as a champion of the middle class.

But nothing in the new lineup of advisors suggests Obama is abandoning the path out of the deep recession he has plotted over the past 20 months.

Two pivotal vacancies — budget director and chair of the Council of Economic Advisors — have been filled from within the administration. And although the White House has said Obama might tap a corporate executive to replace Summers, the team’s most senior member will continue to be Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, a chief architect of the administration’s economic policy.

Some economists said that strategy was a mistake given the slowing pace of economic growth and continued deep problems in the housing market. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office forecasts a modest 2.1% increase in real economic output next year, far too weak to make much of a dent in 9.6% national jobless rate.

“There’s a distinction between shaking up the team and making shifts in policy,” said Robert Shapiro, an economic official in the Clinton administration.

“The question is how much confidence do they have that, without additional measures, the economy will strengthen on its own,” he said. “I think Larry had confidence in that six months ago … but no one has as much confidence in it today.”

While Obama has one eye on the midterms, he is also focused on his reelection in 2012. The president and his economic team have been adamant that the economy is on the right track and that their policies simply need more time to reverse the effects of the deepest recession since the Great Depression.

“We’re moving in the right direction,” Obama said this week during a town hall meeting about the economy.

Obama plays to his base with financial team moves

Two Oregon laws that prohibit making sexually explicit literature available to minors violate the Constitution because they are too broad and infringe on free-speech rights, a federal appeals court ruled Monday.

A lawsuit brought by Powell’s Books, other booksellers, librarians, publishers and sex-education professionals contested the 2007 legislation and warned that what might have been “a well-intended effort to target sexual predators” puts parents, publishers, educators, health counselors and others at risk of jail or fines.

Powell’s, a Portland-based bookseller, and the other plaintiffs asked a federal district judge in the city to declare the laws unconstitutional, but the judge dismissed their petition in 2008.

The two laws were intended to prevent predators from providing sexually arousing material to potential victims.

The first law, intended to shield children under 13 from all sexually explicit content, “reached a substantial amount of material that does not appeal to the prurient interest of a child under 13, but merely appeals to regular sexual interest,” a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said in reversing the district court.

The second law, restricting sexual references available to those under 18, “criminalizes fiction no more tawdry than a romance novel,” the judges added.

States may restrict minors’ access to materials found to be harmful to them, the panel said. “However, speech that is neither obscene as to youths nor subject to some other legitimate proscription cannot be suppressed solely to protect the young from ideas or images that a legislative body thinks unsuitable for them.”

Powell’s Books, the Assn. of American Publishers, Planned Parenthood Columbia/Willamette, Cascade AIDS Project and the American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon had argued in their appeal that if the laws were allowed to stand, a 17-year-old who lends her 13-year-old sister a copy of Judy Blume’s “Forever” could be arrested and prosecuted. Likewise, the plaintiffs warned, a health educator could be charged with a felony for discussing safe sex with anyone under 18.

Lawyers with the Oregon Department of Justice were still studying the opinion and had not decided whether to appeal the 9th Circuit ruling, said department spokesman Tony Green.

Bookstore owner Michael Powell said the laws put booksellers in the uncomfortable position of having to verify the age of young customers and determine which books might be subject to the age restrictions.

“One person’s bad influence is another’s piece of literature,” Powell said. “Those requirements are very unnerving to a bookseller, and they created a sense of bookstores being off-limits to young people, which is the opposite of what we want.”

ACLU attorney P.K. Runkles-Pearson said her organization would be willing to work with state officials “to come up with a constitutional law that meets their concerns.”

carol.williams@latimes.com

Oregon sex-literature laws ruled unconstitutional