LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for PORTSIDE Archives


PORTSIDE Archives

PORTSIDE Archives


PORTSIDE@LISTS.PORTSIDE.ORG


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

PORTSIDE Home

PORTSIDE Home

PORTSIDE  April 2012, Week 1

PORTSIDE April 2012, Week 1

Subject:

Obama JOBS Act Leaves Labor Fuming In Democratic Feud

From:

Portside Moderator <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

Sat, 7 Apr 2012 11:39:57 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (422 lines)

Obama JOBS Act Leaves Labor Fuming In Democratic Feud

By Zack Carter and Ryan Grim
Huffington Post
April 5, 2012

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/05/obama-jobs-act-labor_n_1404401.html?view=print&comm_ref=false

WASHINGTON

President Barack Obama will sign the JOBS Act into law
Thursday, clinching a rare and hard-fought bipartisan
victory for his presidency. But to secure the
legislative win, he had to pick sides in a simmering
feud between interest groups aligned with the
Democratic Party. One side of the fight -- the tech
industry and venture capital allies -- is all smiles.
But the other side -- organized labor -- is seething.

The flashpoint for this Democratic Party conflict --
the JOBS Act -- is the brainchild of Obama's Council on
Jobs and Competitiveness, a 27-member group that the
president stacked with 19 corporate chairmen and CEOs
in an effort, say labor leaders and others, to curry
favor with America's executive class.

But for all of the maneuvering, the JOBS Act is
unlikely to deliver much in the way of job growth,
according to economists and consumer advocates, who
warn that the bill opens the door to a new wave of
conflicts of interest and possible financial fraud on
Wall Street.

Tech companies and their venture capital backers,
angered by a bipartisan push for Internet anti-piracy
legislation known as SOPA, are key beneficiaries of the
JOBS Act -- a fact not lost on Democratic leaders.
Rapid-fire public stock offerings and free-wheeling
funding are the lifeblood of the Silicon Valley
landscape, and the JOBS Act promises to make it easier
for financiers and their clients in the technology
industry to raise money for their companies'
operations.

"What happened coming out of the SOPA fight is, people
in Washington and Congress really sat up and took
notice and said, 'There is actually work to be done
here. This is not just kids in T-shirts running around
Palo Alto on skateboards. This really is a community
looking to create the next wave of businesses that will
jumpstart the American economy,'" says Michael McGeary,
a strategist with the venture capital firm Hattery,
based in San Francisco. "And Congress is very
opportunistic this way. They saw there was this
community that was very engaged ... And we would like
to say thank you to them."

The JOBS Act, say McGreary and other venture
capitalists who work regularly with Silicon Valley,
goes a long way toward sweetening the bitterness brewed
by the SOPA scuffle.

But in deciding to back the JOBS Act, Democrats were
forced to choose between two allies -- labor and the
tech industry. Democrats stuck with Silicon Valley,
secure in the belief that union loyalty isn't going
anywhere. It's yet another political battle pitting
nominal allies against one another because large sums
of money are at stake.

Meanwhile, the White House and congressional
Republicans tout the JOBS Act as a shot in the arm for
small companies that have bright prospects. Fast-
growing start-ups are engines of job growth and the
bill is intended to make it easier for these companies
to raise capital.

In practice, however, the bill will be a greater boon
for venture capitalists, large tech companies and Wall
Street banks. This cadre quickly got the president's
backing for the JOBS Act, despite vocal opposition from
consumer advocates, federal regulators and the largest
U.S. coalition of labor unions, who warned of increased
risk of financial fraud.

"I am concerned that we lack a clear understanding of
the impact the legislation ... will have on investor
protection," Securities and Exchange Commission
Chairman Mary Schapiro wrote in a March 13 letter to
the Senate Banking Committee, saying the bill could
cause "real and significant damage."

Even some of the bill's supporters say it goes too far.

"It wasn't worth throwing the baby out with the
bathwater, but we don't honestly know where this will
lead," McGeary says.

WEAKENED FRAUD PREVENTION

While Obama and, to a lesser extent, House Majority
Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) are eager for a bipartisan
photo-op, no JOBS Act supporters are trumpeting the
number of jobs the legislation will create -- a notable
PR omission in an era when lawmakers rarely hesitate to
tout rosy employment projections.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi ridiculed the bill
during a briefing prior to a House vote last month.
"It's so meager," Pelosi said. "Trumpet -- tun ta ta ta
-- here comes the little king!"

Other Democrats who voted for the bill acknowledge
reservations. "I don't see it as a great jobs bill,"
Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) said Sunday on MSNBC's
"Up with Chris Hayes." "I don't see it creating a lot
of jobs."

Small business groups, too, are divided. The National
Federation of Independent Businesses, the largest and
most partisan-Republican small business group, is not
taking a position. The less partisan National Small
Business Association supports the bill, but the more
progressive Main Street Alliance and American
Sustainable Business Council continue to oppose major
portions, and worked to kill the bill after the House
passed its version in mid-March.

The JOBS Act -- short for Jumpstart Our Business Start-
Ups Act -- was birthed in late-January by Obama's
Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, a group whose
membership provides some insight into the
administration's loyalties and priorities.

Of the two slots Obama awarded to labor unions on the
27-seat council, one was filled by AFL-CIO President
Richard Trumka. The 19 corporate executives included
the heads of GE, Intel, Citigroup, Xerox, Boeing and
American Express. Investment managers, lawyers and
academics make up the remainder.

The jobs council recommended lowering the corporate tax
rate and easing federal regulations across the board --
sweeping proposals with little chance of being enacted
during an election year. But one of its suggestions had
political potential: making it easier for growing
private companies to sell stock to the public, a
process known as an initial public offering. By
attracting more funding, the council surmised, these
enterprises could expand their operations and hire more
workers.

"The average annual number of smaller-firm IPOs (of
less than $50 million) has been one-tenth in the 2000s
what it was in the 1990s," the jobs council stated.
"Removing regulatory barriers to small IPOs . needs to
become a priority."

Trumka publicly criticized the jobs council's report.
He refused to sign off on it and boycotted a January
meeting with Obama presenting the recommendations.

Trumka's outrage, however, did little to slow the jobs
council's political momentum. In January, one week
after the report was published, Obama stumped for its
proposals during his State of the Union address.

"Most new jobs are created in start-ups and small
businesses," Obama said. "So let's pass an agenda that
helps them succeed. Tear down regulations that prevent
aspiring entrepreneurs from getting the financing to
grow."

Union leaders heard a clear message from the
administration: We'll give you a seat at the table, but
that's about it.

Organized labor has been losing this battle for three
decades. While unions remain the backbone of the
Democratic Party's voter turnout operations and its on-
the-ground campaign organization, they are increasingly
marginalized on Capitol Hill. Adding insult to injury,
labor is losing the battle for fraud-prevention laws to
the very sectors who perpetrated those wrongs only a
decade ago.

The JOBS Act weakens rules adopted in the aftermath of
the 1990s tech bubble designed to combat Wall Street
abuses involving tech startups.

"If the president's jobs council actually believes what
it is saying here, then it is very scary," says
economist Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for
Economic and Policy Research. "We did have a lot IPOs
at the end of the '90s. We had 20-year-olds, who didn't
have a clue about anything, who were marketing
dot.nonsense, and raising hundreds of millions of
dollars from gullible investors."

After the tech bubble burst, Wall Street banks that
organized IPOs for small firms were barred from
promoting those stocks with bogus research. The JOBS
Act repeals that ban, re-opening the door to conflicts
of interest that have plagued Wall Street for decades.

"The bill would benefit Wall Street, at the expense of
Main Street, by overriding protections that currently
require a separation between research analysts and
investment bankers who work in the same firm," SEC
Commissioner Luis Aguilar said in a March 16 speech.

The legislation also lifts requirements that only
"accredited investors" be allowed to buy stakes in new
companies, granting the general public a new ability to
make small investments over the Internet, a process
known as "crowdfunding."

Companies with $1 billion or less in annual revenue
will not be required to have a professional accounting
firm audit finances for five years after first selling
stock to the public. That requirement was adopted after
the Enron and WorldCom scandals. The cost of hiring
these accountants, small companies say, discourages
them from expanding their operations by going public.
Firms worth less than $75 million are already exempt
from the rule.

These provisions were all popular among Republicans.
After the State of the Union address, Cantor quickly
cobbled together several existing GOP bills dealing
with the jobs council's recommendations and began
pressing for House passage.

'DISAPPOINTED -- AND ANGRY'

While the JOBS Act angered labor leaders, it presented
an opportunity for Democrats to repair ties with
another core constituency: Silicon Valley.

Tech companies and venture capitalists were deeply
offended by the bipartisan push this winter to pass the
Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA -- which they warned
would create significant functional problems for the
Internet and stifle free speech. The bill failed, but
not before exposing a significant rift between Silicon
Valley and Washington.

Lifting the requirements on "accredited investors" and
enabling crowdfunding was particularly attractive to
progressive small business groups within and beyond
Silicon Valley looking for financing arrangements
outside the traditional Wall Street power center.
Before the JOBS Act, only investors with significant
net worth were eligible to take part in sometime-
lucrative IPOs that allow people to get in at the
ground floor of the next Facebook. The American
Sustainable Business Council had been pushing for
crowdfunding since 2010 as a tool to help small
enterprises get started by pooling small investments
from many retailers.

But without proper oversight, crowdfunding could simply
become a license for fraud, according to financial
reform advocates. The whole point of restricting stock
sales to "accredited investors," after all, is to
prevent scammers from ripping off uninformed consumers
by selling them bogus or worthless stock.

In testimony before the Senate Banking Committee,
Columbia University Law School Professor John Coffee
warned that the bill "seems likely to invite a
significant amount of fraud" without substantial
revisions to the crowdfunding language.

Even small business advocates and many venture
capitalists were alarmed when Majority Leader Cantor
and the House GOP began pushing a version of the JOBS
Act that would have permitted unlimited investment in
companies without any federal oversight, provided the
transactions were conducted online.

"We think that the House version has gone overboard,"
said Frank Knapp, president and CEO of the South
Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce, speaking
the day after the House bill passed. "The same greed
and fraud that gave us the Great Recession is going to
come to Main Street if the House version of
crowdfunding goes through."

Privately, Obama administration officials say that the
unlimited investment provision would have broken their
support for the bill. But publicly, the White House
communicated a strong message of support, prompting a
quick vote in the House. The Obama administration's
statement blindsided unions and business groups who
were critical of its provisions and created uproar in
the Senate.

An aide to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.),
who requested anonymity because of the sensitive nature
of the negotiations, told HuffPost his boss called the
White House to complain, saying the aggressive White
House support had hampered Reid's ability to improve
the bill, putting him in a bind with Democrats who
didn't like the legislation and forcing him to choose
between his loyalty to Obama and the commitments he had
already made to interest groups. The administration's
statement almost blew up the bill.

Trumka personally called senators to blast the bill,
bypassing the standard lobbying channels to emphasize
the intensity of his objections. "We'd believed it
would slow down in the Senate," senior AFL-CIO lobbyist
Bill Samuel told HuffPost. "That plan changed almost
overnight because the White House endorsed it and the
House held this big vote."

Liberal stalwarts like Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and
professed moderates like Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.)
took to the Senate floor to criticize the bill, even as
Reid rallied Democrats to get behind Obama.

Major institutional investors jumped into the fray. The
California Public Employees' Retirement System, which
manages a $235 billion pension fund, sent a letter
urging Reid and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell
to ramp up fraud protections, voicing a concern for its
own bottom line much as did the AFL-CIO.

And while McGeary still supports the bill, he says that
he and other venture capitalists would have preferred
stronger anti-fraud measures in the crowdfunding
section, and thinks the exemption from independent
accounting is too broad. The deregulation in the House
version caused his firm to consider withdrawing
support, but ultimately decided to stay on board.

Bigger players never wavered. On March 15, the National
Venture Capital Association, the Silicon Valley
Leadership Group and TechNet -- an umbrella lobbying
organization representing major tech firms including
Google, Apple and Yahoo -- joined the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce and a handful of CEOs in a letter urging
Congress to pass the House version.

Sens. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.)
and Scott Brown (R-Mass.) responded to the fraud
warnings with an amendment that greatly strengthened
the investor protections surrounding crowdfunding. As a
result of the amendment, raising money over the
Internet can only be conducted through a third-party
platform regulated by the Securities and Exchange
Commission. Companies must also make basic financial
disclosures to investors before seeking money.

And whatever their public stance on the Cantor version
of the JOBS Act, the White House worked the Senate to
consider both the Merkley-Bennet-Brown amendment and
another, stronger investor protection amendment offered
by Sens. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) and Carl Levin (D-Mich.).
The Reed-Levin amendment secured 54 votes, 6 short of
the number necessary to overcome a filibuster.

"We worked closely with key Democratic senators for
some time on stronger investor protections for the
capital formation provision we supported and would have
preferred the Senate Democratic alternatives," Gene
Sperling, Director of the White House National Economic
Council, told HuffPost. "Fortunately, we were at least
able to get 100 percent of Merkley-Bennett provisions
for crowd-funding."

But the AFL-CIO felt that the process had been rigged
against them. Reid, who pushed for passage on behalf of
the White House, agreed to a 60-vote threshold to pass
amendments, rather than a simple 51-vote majority.
Nevertheless, with the gloss of investor protection
applied, the bill passed the Senate by an overwhelming,
bipartisan majority on March 22.

For consumer groups, the amendment was like putting
lipstick on a pig.

"It is almost unbelievable that the Senate would rush
passage of measures that will undermine transparency
and accountability in the capital markets, and expose
our families to a new round of fraud and abuse," said
Lisa Donner, executive director of Americans for
Financial Reform, a coalition of consumer groups and
Wall Street watchdogs that organized in the wake of the
financial crisis. "But that is what they have done."

Labor was furious.

"We are disappointed -- and angry -- that despite
warnings from current and former financial markets
regulators, law professors, institutional investors and
consumer advocates, 73 senators voted for the cynically
named 'JOBS Act,'" Trumka said.

"This is a vote against investors in the real economy
and for Wall Street speculators. When the next bubble
bursts, Americans will know who to blame."

___________________________________________

Portside aims to provide material of interest to people
on the left that will help them to interpret the world
and to change it.

Submit via email: [log in to unmask]

Submit via the Web: http://portside.org/submittous3

Frequently asked questions: http://portside.org/faq

Sub/Unsub: http://portside.org/subscribe-and-unsubscribe

Search Portside archives: http://portside.org/archive

Contribute to Portside: https://portside.org/donate

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

February 2020, Week 4
February 2020, Week 3
February 2020, Week 2
February 2020, Week 1
January 2020, Week 5
January 2020, Week 4
January 2020, Week 3
January 2020, Week 2
January 2020, Week 1
December 2019, Week 5
December 2019, Week 4
December 2019, Week 3
December 2019, Week 2
December 2019, Week 1
November 2019, Week 5
November 2019, Week 4
November 2019, Week 3
November 2019, Week 2
November 2019, Week 1
October 2019, Week 5
October 2019, Week 4
October 2019, Week 3
October 2019, Week 2
October 2019, Week 1
September 2019, Week 5
September 2019, Week 4
September 2019, Week 3
September 2019, Week 2
September 2019, Week 1
August 2019, Week 5
August 2019, Week 4
August 2019, Week 3
August 2019, Week 2
August 2019, Week 1
July 2019, Week 5
July 2019, Week 4
July 2019, Week 3
July 2019, Week 2
July 2019, Week 1
June 2019, Week 5
June 2019, Week 4
June 2019, Week 3
June 2019, Week 2
June 2019, Week 1
May 2019, Week 5
May 2019, Week 4
May 2019, Week 3
May 2019, Week 2
May 2019, Week 1
April 2019, Week 5
April 2019, Week 4
April 2019, Week 3
April 2019, Week 2
April 2019, Week 1
March 2019, Week 5
March 2019, Week 4
March 2019, Week 3
March 2019, Week 2
March 2019, Week 1
February 2019, Week 4
February 2019, Week 3
February 2019, Week 2
February 2019, Week 1
January 2019, Week 5
January 2019, Week 4
January 2019, Week 3
January 2019, Week 2
January 2019, Week 1
December 2018, Week 5
December 2018, Week 4
December 2018, Week 3
December 2018, Week 2
December 2018, Week 1
November 2018, Week 5
November 2018, Week 4
November 2018, Week 3
November 2018, Week 2
November 2018, Week 1
October 2018, Week 5
October 2018, Week 4
October 2018, Week 3
October 2018, Week 2
October 2018, Week 1
September 2018, Week 5
September 2018, Week 4
September 2018, Week 3
September 2018, Week 2
September 2018, Week 1
August 2018, Week 5
August 2018, Week 4
August 2018, Week 3
August 2018, Week 2
August 2018, Week 1
July 2018, Week 5
July 2018, Week 4
July 2018, Week 3
July 2018, Week 2
July 2018, Week 1
June 2018, Week 5
June 2018, Week 4
June 2018, Week 3
June 2018, Week 2
June 2018, Week 1
May 2018, Week 5
May 2018, Week 4
May 2018, Week 3
May 2018, Week 2
May 2018, Week 1
April 2018, Week 5
April 2018, Week 4
April 2018, Week 3
April 2018, Week 2
April 2018, Week 1
March 2018, Week 5
March 2018, Week 4
March 2018, Week 3
March 2018, Week 2
March 2018, Week 1
February 2018, Week 4
February 2018, Week 3
February 2018, Week 2
February 2018, Week 1
January 2018, Week 5
January 2018, Week 4
January 2018, Week 3
January 2018, Week 2
January 2018, Week 1
December 2017, Week 5
December 2017, Week 4
December 2017, Week 3
December 2017, Week 2
December 2017, Week 1
November 2017, Week 5
November 2017, Week 4
November 2017, Week 3
November 2017, Week 2
November 2017, Week 1
October 2017, Week 5
October 2017, Week 4
October 2017, Week 3
October 2017, Week 2
October 2017, Week 1
September 2017, Week 5
September 2017, Week 4
September 2017, Week 3
September 2017, Week 2
September 2017, Week 1
August 2017, Week 5
August 2017, Week 4
August 2017, Week 3
August 2017, Week 2
August 2017, Week 1
July 2017, Week 5
July 2017, Week 4
July 2017, Week 3
July 2017, Week 2
July 2017, Week 1
June 2017, Week 5
June 2017, Week 4
June 2017, Week 3
June 2017, Week 2
June 2017, Week 1
May 2017, Week 5
May 2017, Week 4
May 2017, Week 3
May 2017, Week 2
May 2017, Week 1
April 2017, Week 5
April 2017, Week 4
April 2017, Week 3
April 2017, Week 2
April 2017, Week 1
March 2017, Week 5
March 2017, Week 4
March 2017, Week 3
March 2017, Week 2
March 2017, Week 1
February 2017, Week 4
February 2017, Week 3
February 2017, Week 2
February 2017, Week 1
January 2017, Week 5
January 2017, Week 4
January 2017, Week 3
January 2017, Week 2
January 2017, Week 1
December 2016, Week 5
December 2016, Week 4
December 2016, Week 3
December 2016, Week 2
December 2016, Week 1
November 2016, Week 5
November 2016, Week 4
November 2016, Week 3
November 2016, Week 2
November 2016, Week 1
October 2016, Week 5
October 2016, Week 4
October 2016, Week 3
October 2016, Week 2
October 2016, Week 1
September 2016, Week 5
September 2016, Week 4
September 2016, Week 3
September 2016, Week 2
September 2016, Week 1
August 2016, Week 5
August 2016, Week 4
August 2016, Week 3
August 2016, Week 2
August 2016, Week 1
July 2016, Week 5
July 2016, Week 4
July 2016, Week 3
July 2016, Week 2
July 2016, Week 1
June 2016, Week 5
June 2016, Week 4
June 2016, Week 3
June 2016, Week 2
June 2016, Week 1
May 2016, Week 5
May 2016, Week 4
May 2016, Week 3
May 2016, Week 2
May 2016, Week 1
April 2016, Week 5
April 2016, Week 4
April 2016, Week 3
April 2016, Week 2
April 2016, Week 1
March 2016, Week 5
March 2016, Week 4
March 2016, Week 3
March 2016, Week 2
March 2016, Week 1
February 2016, Week 5
February 2016, Week 4
February 2016, Week 3
February 2016, Week 2
February 2016, Week 1
January 2016, Week 5
January 2016, Week 4
January 2016, Week 3
January 2016, Week 2
January 2016, Week 1
December 2015, Week 5
December 2015, Week 4
December 2015, Week 3
December 2015, Week 2
December 2015, Week 1
November 2015, Week 5
November 2015, Week 4
November 2015, Week 3
November 2015, Week 2
November 2015, Week 1
October 2015, Week 5
October 2015, Week 4
October 2015, Week 3
October 2015, Week 2
October 2015, Week 1
September 2015, Week 5
September 2015, Week 4
September 2015, Week 3
September 2015, Week 2
September 2015, Week 1
August 2015, Week 5
August 2015, Week 4
August 2015, Week 3
August 2015, Week 2
August 2015, Week 1
July 2015, Week 5
July 2015, Week 4
July 2015, Week 3
July 2015, Week 2
July 2015, Week 1
June 2015, Week 5
June 2015, Week 4
June 2015, Week 3
June 2015, Week 2
June 2015, Week 1
May 2015, Week 5
May 2015, Week 4
May 2015, Week 3
May 2015, Week 2
May 2015, Week 1
April 2015, Week 5
April 2015, Week 4
April 2015, Week 3
April 2015, Week 2
April 2015, Week 1
March 2015, Week 5
March 2015, Week 4
March 2015, Week 3
March 2015, Week 2
March 2015, Week 1
February 2015, Week 4
February 2015, Week 3
February 2015, Week 2
February 2015, Week 1
January 2015, Week 5
January 2015, Week 4
January 2015, Week 3
January 2015, Week 2
January 2015, Week 1
December 2014, Week 5
December 2014, Week 4
December 2014, Week 3
December 2014, Week 2
December 2014, Week 1
November 2014, Week 5
November 2014, Week 4
November 2014, Week 3
November 2014, Week 2
November 2014, Week 1
October 2014, Week 5
October 2014, Week 4
October 2014, Week 3
October 2014, Week 2
October 2014, Week 1
September 2014, Week 5
September 2014, Week 4
September 2014, Week 3
September 2014, Week 2
September 2014, Week 1
August 2014, Week 5
August 2014, Week 4
August 2014, Week 3
August 2014, Week 2
August 2014, Week 1
July 2014, Week 5
July 2014, Week 4
July 2014, Week 3
July 2014, Week 2
July 2014, Week 1
June 2014, Week 5
June 2014, Week 4
June 2014, Week 3
June 2014, Week 2
June 2014, Week 1
May 2014, Week 5
May 2014, Week 4
May 2014, Week 3
May 2014, Week 2
May 2014, Week 1
April 2014, Week 5
April 2014, Week 4
April 2014, Week 3
April 2014, Week 2
April 2014, Week 1
March 2014, Week 5
March 2014, Week 4
March 2014, Week 3
March 2014, Week 2
March 2014, Week 1
February 2014, Week 4
February 2014, Week 3
February 2014, Week 2
February 2014, Week 1
January 2014, Week 5
January 2014, Week 4
January 2014, Week 3
January 2014, Week 2
January 2014, Week 1
December 2013, Week 5
December 2013, Week 4
December 2013, Week 3
December 2013, Week 2
December 2013, Week 1
November 2013, Week 5
November 2013, Week 4
November 2013, Week 3
November 2013, Week 2
November 2013, Week 1
October 2013, Week 5
October 2013, Week 4
October 2013, Week 3
October 2013, Week 2
October 2013, Week 1
September 2013, Week 5
September 2013, Week 4
September 2013, Week 3
September 2013, Week 2
September 2013, Week 1
August 2013, Week 5
August 2013, Week 4
August 2013, Week 3
August 2013, Week 2
August 2013, Week 1
July 2013, Week 5
July 2013, Week 4
July 2013, Week 3
July 2013, Week 2
July 2013, Week 1
June 2013, Week 5
June 2013, Week 4
June 2013, Week 3
June 2013, Week 2
June 2013, Week 1
May 2013, Week 5
May 2013, Week 4
May 2013, Week 3
May 2013, Week 2
May 2013, Week 1
April 2013, Week 5
April 2013, Week 4
April 2013, Week 3
April 2013, Week 2
April 2013, Week 1
March 2013, Week 5
March 2013, Week 4
March 2013, Week 3
March 2013, Week 2
March 2013, Week 1
February 2013, Week 4
February 2013, Week 3
February 2013, Week 2
February 2013, Week 1
January 2013, Week 5
January 2013, Week 4
January 2013, Week 3
January 2013, Week 2
January 2013, Week 1
December 2012, Week 5
December 2012, Week 4
December 2012, Week 3
December 2012, Week 2
December 2012, Week 1
November 2012, Week 5
November 2012, Week 4
November 2012, Week 3
November 2012, Week 2
November 2012, Week 1
October 2012, Week 5
October 2012, Week 4
October 2012, Week 3
October 2012, Week 2
October 2012, Week 1
September 2012, Week 5
September 2012, Week 4
September 2012, Week 3
September 2012, Week 2
September 2012, Week 1
August 2012, Week 5
August 2012, Week 4
August 2012, Week 3
August 2012, Week 2
August 2012, Week 1
July 2012, Week 5
July 2012, Week 4
July 2012, Week 3
July 2012, Week 2
July 2012, Week 1
June 2012, Week 5
June 2012, Week 4
June 2012, Week 3
June 2012, Week 2
June 2012, Week 1
May 2012, Week 5
May 2012, Week 4
May 2012, Week 3
May 2012, Week 2
May 2012, Week 1
April 2012, Week 5
April 2012, Week 4
April 2012, Week 3
April 2012, Week 2
April 2012, Week 1
March 2012, Week 5
March 2012, Week 4
March 2012, Week 3
March 2012, Week 2
March 2012, Week 1
February 2012, Week 5
February 2012, Week 4
February 2012, Week 3
February 2012, Week 2
February 2012, Week 1
January 2012, Week 5
January 2012, Week 4
January 2012, Week 3
January 2012, Week 2
January 2012, Week 1
December 2011, Week 5
December 2011, Week 4
December 2011, Week 3
December 2011, Week 2
December 2011, Week 1
November 2011, Week 5
November 2011, Week 4
November 2011, Week 3
November 2011, Week 2
November 2011, Week 1
October 2011, Week 5
October 2011, Week 4
October 2011, Week 3
October 2011, Week 2
October 2011, Week 1
September 2011, Week 5
September 2011, Week 4
September 2011, Week 3
September 2011, Week 2
September 2011, Week 1
August 2011, Week 5
August 2011, Week 4
August 2011, Week 3
August 2011, Week 2
August 2011, Week 1
July 2011, Week 5
July 2011, Week 4
July 2011, Week 3
July 2011, Week 2
July 2011, Week 1
June 2011, Week 5
June 2011, Week 4
June 2011, Week 3
June 2011, Week 2
June 2011, Week 1
May 2011, Week 5
May 2011, Week 4
May 2011, Week 3
May 2011, Week 2
May 2011, Week 1
April 2011, Week 5
April 2011, Week 4
April 2011, Week 3
April 2011, Week 2
April 2011, Week 1
March 2011, Week 5
March 2011, Week 4
March 2011, Week 3
March 2011, Week 2
March 2011, Week 1
February 2011, Week 4
February 2011, Week 3
February 2011, Week 2
February 2011, Week 1
January 2011, Week 5
January 2011, Week 4
January 2011, Week 3
January 2011, Week 2
January 2011, Week 1
December 2010, Week 5
December 2010, Week 4
December 2010, Week 3
December 2010, Week 2
December 2010, Week 1
November 2010, Week 5
November 2010, Week 4
November 2010, Week 3
November 2010, Week 2
November 2010, Week 1
October 2010, Week 5
October 2010, Week 4
October 2010, Week 3
October 2010, Week 2
October 2010, Week 1
September 2010, Week 5
September 2010, Week 4
September 2010, Week 3
September 2010, Week 2
September 2010, Week 1
August 2010, Week 5
August 2010, Week 4
August 2010, Week 3
August 2010, Week 2
August 2010, Week 1
July 2010, Week 5
July 2010, Week 4
July 2010, Week 3
July 2010, Week 2
July 2010, Week 1

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTS.PORTSIDE.ORG

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager