Here’s a Memo From the Boss: Vote This Way

By STEVEN GREENHOUSE (The New York Tmes)

Imagine getting a letter from the boss, telling you how to vote.

Until 2010, federal law barred companies from using corporate money to endorse and campaign for political candidates — and that included urging employees to support specific politicians.

But the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision has freed companies from those restrictions, and now several major companies, including Georgia-Pacific and Cintas, have sent letters or information packets to their employees suggesting — and sometimes explicitly recommending — how they should vote this fall.

In these letters, the executives complain about the costs of overregulation, the health care overhaul and possible tax increases. Some letters warn that if President Obama is re-elected, the company could be harmed, potentially jeopardizing jobs.

David A. Siegel, 77, chief executive of Westgate Resorts, a major time-share company, wrote to his 7,000 employees, saying that if Mr. Obama won, the prospect of higher taxes could hurt the company’s future.

“The economy doesn’t currently pose a threat to your job. What does threaten your job, however, is another four years of the same presidential administration,” Mr. Siegel wrote. “If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, as our current president plans, I will have no choice but to reduce the size of this company.”

In an interview, Mr. Siegel said he was not ordering his employees to vote his way. “There’s no way I can pressure anybody,” he said. “I’m not in the voting booth with them.”

Mr. Siegel added: “I really wanted them to know how I felt four more years under President Obama was going to affect them. It would be no different from telling your children: ‘Eat your spinach. It’s good for you.’ ”

Dave Robertson, the president of Koch Industries, sent an information packet and letter this month to more than 30,000 employees of a subsidiary, Georgia-Pacific, a paper and pulp company. The letter attacked government subsidies for “a few favored cronies” as well as “unprecedented regulatory burdens on businesses.”

The letter added, “Many of our more than 50,000 U.S. employees and contractors may suffer the consequences, including higher gasoline prices, runaway inflation and other ills.”

The Georgia-Pacific letter, first reported by In These Times, included a flier listing several candidates endorsed by the Koch brothers, the conservative billionaires, beginning with Mitt Romney, as well as opinion articles that the brothers had written.

Travis McKinney, a forklift driver for Georgia-Pacific in Portland, Ore., said the company’s political packet had spurred widespread discussion. “It leaves a bad taste,” Mr. McKinney said. “I won’t even wear my Obama pin to work because of the mailer.”

In a statement, Koch Industries said its mailing contained pieces of information “we believe are important for our employees to know about.” The company said the letter was in no way intimidation: “We make it clear that any decision about which candidates to support belongs solely to our employees.”

Other companies whose top executives have sent out anti-Obama letters include Rite-Hite, a manufacturer of industrial equipment based in Milwaukee, and ASG Software Solutions, based in Naples, Fla.

Many corporate executives say they have stepped up their political activities to counter organized labor’s efforts on behalf of Mr. Obama and other Democrats. Even before Citizens United, unions were allowed to promote candidates to their members. Democrats and Republicans alike acknowledged the effectiveness of labor’s political efforts.

Mr. Romney has himself urged business owners to appeal to their employees. In a conference call in June organized by the National Federation of Independent Business, he said, “I hope you make it very clear to your employees what you believe is in the best interest of your enterprise and therefore their job and their future in the upcoming elections.”

Larry Gold, associate general counsel of the A.F.L.-C.I.O., said some of the recent employer letters, by hinting at the possible loss of employees’ jobs, appeared to cross the line into improper coercion. Federal law and the laws of several states bar anyone from coercing or intimidating voters into voting a certain way.

But Bradley A. Smith, a Republican former member of the Federal Election Commission and a professor at Capital University Law School, disagreed, saying letters like those sent by the companies were not firm threats to fire anyone if Mr. Obama won.

According to the Citizens United ruling, companies may recommend candidates to employees, said Eugene Volokh, a law professor at University of California, Los Angeles.

“If the employer wants to say, ‘This candidate is good or bad for our business and therefore good or bad for you, the employee, that’s permissible — that’s protected by the First Amendment,” Professor Volokh said. “But if the employer threatens to fire you based on how you vote, that’s not protected.”

But many liberal legal experts fear that employees could be discouraged from exercising their rights to free speech.

“The concern here is there is an unavoidable power disparity between management and employees,” said Adam Skaggs, senior counsel at the liberal Brennan Center for Justice. “Put yourself in the shoes of an employee at any of those companies. Are you going to be comfortable putting an Obama bumper sticker on your car and driving into the company parking lot? If you’re in a small community with a big employer, will you feel uncomfortable about putting up a yard sign for a candidate your boss doesn’t favor?”

Richard Lacks, chief executive of Lacks Enterprises, an auto parts company based in Grand Rapids, Mich., wrote to his 2,300 employees this month warning that an Obama victory would mean higher health care costs and higher taxes that would eat into their paychecks. “It is important that in November you vote to improve your standard of living and that will be through smaller government and less government,” he wrote.

Scott D. Farmer, chief executive of Cintas, the uniform supply company, sent a letter to his company’s 30,000 employees on Oct. 19, denouncing the Affordable Care Act and saying it “amounts to the single largest tax on Americans and business in history.” He warned employees that “the overregulation that business is facing today from the various administrative agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency” and the National Labor Relations Board “is suffocating many companies.”

Mr. Farmer added, “This uncertainty felt by many of our customers about their ability to run and grow their businesses prevents them from adding jobs which hurts our ability to grow and add jobs.”

Asked about Mr. Farmer’s letter, Greg Hart, Cintas’s vice president for government affairs, responded, “The communication was not an attempt to suggest to employees how to vote, but rather it was sent to help partners make an informed decision.”

Election law experts did not point to any corporate efforts this year to urge employees to back Mr. Obama, although corporations have at times politicked for Democratic candidates. In 2010, Harrah’s, the casino company, urged its employees to go to the polls to re-elect Nevada’s senior senator, contending that “waking up to the defeat of Harry Reid Nov. 3 will be devastating.”

ALL FACTUAL: BRIDGE BURNING: ROMNEY’S TAX AND FEE INCREASES WHEN HE WAS GOVERNOR

By Derek Pearce (The Wire)

The Tax Burden In Massachusetts Increased

As Governor, Romney Raised Individual Fees And Corporate Taxes By $750 Million. According to The Los Angeles Times, “By Mitt Romney’s account, his record as governor of Massachusetts shows how cutting taxes and public spending spurs economic growth — and serves as a model for shrinking the U.S. government. He says he stood up for conservative principles, guiding the state out of a fiscal crisis by ramming cuts through a recalcitrant Democratic Legislature. Romney takes credit for vetoing more than 800 spending items passed by the Legislature, saying he wiped out unneeded programs, cut taxes 19 times, built up a $2-billion rainy-day fund and balanced the budget four years in a row. All of that, he says, shows he can stop overspending. ‘We can balance our budget and live within our means,’ he recently told supporters in Ohio. But Romney’s telling omits key facts that clash with the agenda of his campaign for president: The Legislature overrode most of Romney’s spending vetoes. State spending rose by 22% on Romney’s watch, nearly double the rate of inflation. Romney increased corporate taxes and state fees by $750 million a year, outstripping his tax cuts.” [The Los Angeles Times, 6/9/12]

During Romney’s Tenure The Massachusetts Tax Burden Increased From 10 Percent To 10.6 Percent Of Per Capita Income. According to the Boston Globe, “Data compiled by The Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan research group in Washington, shows that during Romney’s four years as governor, the state and local tax burden in Massachusetts increased from 10 percent to 10.6 percent of per capita income.” [Boston Globe, 6/29/07]

Factcheck.org: The Massachusetts Tax Burden Increased Under Romney. According to Factcheck.org, “In Massachusetts, the tax burden figure went up under Romney, from 5.93 percent to 6.57 percent.” [Factcheck.org, 10/12/07]

State & Local Tax Burden Increased 6.5 Percent During The Romney Administration. According to The Tax Foundation, a conservative tax research organization, in 2002 (the year before Romney came to power), the state and local tax burden in Massachusetts was 9.3 percent. In 2006, Romney’s last year in office, the state and local tax burden of Massachusetts had increased to 9.9 percent. Thus, under Romney, Bay Staters saw their taxes burden increase by 6.5 percent in real terms. [The Tax Foundation, 2/23/11]

Romney Raised Taxes And Fees On Business

Governor Romney Agreed To Increase Corporate Taxes By  $375 Million A Year. According to The Los Angeles Times, “Romney also upset business leaders by agreeing to increase corporate taxes by $375 million a year. His justification was that companies had been exploiting obscure loopholes that needed to be closed. Corporate software that was downloaded from the Internet, for example, would no longer be exempt from the sales tax that applied to identical software when purchased in disc format.” [The Los Angeles Times, 6/9/12]

 

Romney Justified $375 Million In Fee Increases, Including A Gas Tax, Because Fees Had Not Increased In Decades. According to The Los Angeles Times, “Romney’s $375 million in fee hikes were broader: The state raised the cost of elevator inspections, boat registrations, gun licenses and ice skating at public rinks. Fines for speeding tickets went up. A new fee was imposed on law school graduates for taking the bar exam. The cost of a marriage license jumped from $4 to $50. A tax on gasoline, which the state called a fee, rose from half a cent to 2.5 cents per gallon. All of the hikes were justified, Romney said, because many state fees had not gone up in decades, and they applied only to users of specific services.” [The Los Angeles Times, 6/9/12]

Romney Raised Fees As Governor By $400 Million And Raised Corporate Tax Revenue By $300 Million. According to the Boston Globe, “Mitt Romney has the fever, the George Herbert Walker Bush no-new-tax fever. Read his lips. No new taxes. But what about new fees? On the presidential campaign trail, Romney brags about a $3 billion budget shortfall he said he closed as governor, without any tax increases. He doesn’t mention the more than $400 million in fees he raised instead. He also raised more than $300 million by closing so-called corporate loopholes, a revenue-raising measure the business community calls a tax increase.” [Boston Globe, 10/11/07]

Romney’s Third Round Of Business Tax Hikes Were Cut In Half After Democrats Balked “Amid Protests From Some Of The State’s Leading Business Groups.” According to the Patriot Ledger, “But Romney’s claim that he balanced the state budget ‘without raising taxes’ needs plenty of caveats. Romney and his revenue chief, Alan LeBovidge, presided over a steady series of what they referred to as measures to close ‘tax loopholes’ for companies. To many of the companies that had to pay more taxes, those loophole closings sure felt like tax increases. The Democrats who run the state Legislature went along with the first two rounds. But they started to balk when Round 3 arrived in 2005 amid protests from some of the state’s leading business groups, forcing the Romney administration to cut the proposed tax changes in half that year.” [Patriot Ledger, 1/26/08]

Romney Raised Fees On Business Advertisements. During the CNN Presidential Debate, in January of 2008 Mitt Romney said “With regards to fees, we raised fees $240 million. Not $730 million. Facts are stubborn things. We audited our fee increase, because, of course, we cared. Now, why did we raise fees $240 million? We had a $3 billion budget shortfall, we decided we were not going to raise taxes, and we found that some fees hadn’t been raised in as many as 20 years. These were not broad-based fees for things like getting your driver’s license or your license plate for your car, but instead something like the cost of a sign on the interstate and how much it was going to cost to publish a McDonald’s or a Burger King sign on the interstate. We went from, like, $200 a sign to $2,000 a sign to raise money for our state in a way that was consistent with the what the market had done over the ensuing years.” [CNN Presidential Debate, 1/30/2008, 15:36]

Under Romney, Property Taxes Went Up Their Highest Level In 25 Years

Romney Signed Measure Forcing Hike In Local Commercial Property Taxes And Property Taxes Went To Their Highest Point In 25 Years. Romney “signed a measure that allowed local officials to raise the commercial property tax rate, which cost business owners $100 million, according to Associated Industries of Massachusetts, the state’s largest business group.” Romney’s cuts to local aid forced Massachusetts property taxes to their highest level in 25 years. [Quincy Patriot Ledger, 12/16/05; Boston Globe, 10/24/05]

Romney’s Spending Cuts To Localities Increased Fees And Made Cities And Towns Have To Use Property Taxes For 53 Percent Of Their Budgets—A 25 Year High. According to the Boston Globe, “The effects of the initial deep spending cuts are still being felt, especially in cities and towns, which absorbed reductions of about $400 million, or 9 percent, in the first 18 months of Romney’s term. Cities and towns now rely on property taxes to pay 53 percent of their budgets, a 25-year high and up from 49 percent before Romney took office, said Geoffrey Beckwith, executive director of the Massachusetts Municipal Association. Many communities cut services and raised fees as a result, he said.” [Boston Globe, 6/29/07]

Romney’s Cuts To Local Aid Made Property Taxes Rise On The Local Level. According to Politifact, “For instance, in 2003, Romney’s first year in office, the governor and the state legislature reduced payments to cities and towns by 5.8 percent. The state increased a myriad of fees by some $218-million — Romney had proposed increasing fees by $400-million. And the state increased corporate income taxes by $174-million, according to the National Association of State Budget Officers. ‘The suggestion that he didn’t raise revenue is not accurate,’ said Michael Widmer, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Association, a conservative group. If aid to cities and towns decreases, then property taxes at the local level increase, he said, adding that ‘it is a little bit indirect.’” [Politifact, 9/27/07]

Romney Cut Local Aid Which Forced Cities And Towns To Increase Local Taxes And Fees. According to Factcheck.org, “In addition, Romney cut local aid, a program whereby the state supplied revenue to cities and counties. In 2004, Romney cut nearly 5 percent, or about $230 million, from the local aid budget. The Massachusetts Municipal Association, representing the state’s cities and towns, said Romney’s cut ‘forced communities statewide to cut services and raise local taxes and fees.’ The exact amount of the local tax increases hasn’t been definitively tallied, but to some extent Romney avoided a state tax increase only by forcing increases at the local level.” [Factcheck.org, 5/16/07]

Romney Cuts In Local Aid Led To Local Tax Increases Mainly In The Form Of Property Tax Increases. According to Factcheck.org, “Romney’s cuts in local aid also led indirectly to local tax increases (mainly in the form of property tax increases).” [Factcheck.org, 9/6/07]

Romney’s Proposed Taxes & Fee Increases

Romney Proposed Raising Fees For On The Mentally Challenged. According to the Boston Herald, “The ax also fell on such previously protected areas as the Department of Mental Retardation, where Romney cut $ 4.6 million from residential services, day programs, family support and institutions. The governor also levied new DMR fees, forcing clients to pony up $ 25 a month for transportation and $ 25 a month for day services.” [Boston Herald, 1/31/03]

 

Romney Proposed An Assessment Fee On Mentally Retarded Citizens. According to BuzzFeed, “Romney proposed a fee on mentally retarded citizens of $100 to pay for an intake assessment at the Department of Mental Retardation. The assessment was previously free. The test was to determine their eligibility for state services. The legislature rejected Romney’s proposed fee.” [BuzzFeed, 6/20/12]

Romney Proposed Charging The Blind For ID to Travel Free on Public Transportation. According to the Boston Globe, “The price of being sight-impaired will be going up. They [the Romney Administration] want to start charging blind people a $15 fee for a travel ID that would allow them to continue riding the T for free. The ID currently costs nothing.” The Globe reported Romney’s tax on these ID cards would generate $14,000. [Boston Globe, 5/25/03]

Romney Tried To Increase Fee For Certificates Of Blindness. According to BuzzFeed, “Romney attempted to impose a $10 fee for a state certificate of blindness and $15 for a photo id card, but the Legislature got rid of the plans.” [BuzzFeed, 6/20/12]

Romney Proposed Hiking Or Creating Nine Fees At The Registries. According to the Springfield Union News, In his FY 2003 budget, Romney proposed “hiking or creating nine fees at the registries. For example, the fee for filing a deed or conveyance would rise from $45 to $100; the fee for obtaining a homestead exemption, which protects the equity in a home from legal judgments, would jump from $10 to $30; the fee for recording a 10-page mortgage would go from $46 to $88; and recording a 10-page trust would skyrocket from $36 to $200. Romney is also proposing a new $5 surcharge for every document recorded at a registry.” [Springfield Union News, 2/8/2003]

Romney Proposed Double And Triple Fees On Common Real Estate Transactions. According to the Worcester Telegram & Gazette, Romney wanted  “to double or triple many common real estate transactions, such as recording mortgages, deeds and homesteads. [They are] also proposing to raise childcare licensing fees by 30 percent and to double fees for birth, death and marriage certificates. The proposals are also soon expected to become law after the Legislature approved them last week.” [Worchester Telegram & Gazette, 2/21/03]

Romney’s Budget Quadrupled Fee For Firearms Identification & License To Carry. According to the Quincy Patriot-Ledger, “Also drawing criticism is quadrupling of fees charged to gun owners this year. Under the budget, fees will rise from $25 to $100 for both a firearms identification card and a license to carry firearms, which are required by state law. ‘In general, the government has failed to meet its obligations and now it’s passing the buck,’ said Michael Yacino, executive director of the Gun Owners Action League, which has opposed the fee increases. ‘It just shows they don’t have any answers.’”[Quincy Patriot-Ledger, 7/9/03]

Romney Doubled Tax On Marriage And Birth Certificates. According to the Boston Globe, “Birth certificates and marriage licenses, which could recently be had for just $6, will now cost double.” [Boston Globe, 1/31/06]

Romney Created New Tax For Individuals Filing Complaints With The Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination. According to the Boston Globe, “He vowed not to raise taxes. But Governor Mitt Romney never made any promises about fees. The governor’s proposed 2004 budget new fee on individuals who file complaints with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination.”[Boston Globe, 2/28/03]

Romney Proposed Increased Taxes On Tuberculosis Tests. According to the Associated Press, “Among GOP Gov. Mitt Romney’s proposals are a $50 fee for a tuberculosis test. Another would have charged $100 to determine if someone is mentally retarded and eligible for state services, though that measure was dropped in the legislature.” [Associated Press, 7/13/03]

Romney Proposed Fees For Tuberculosis Testing. According to BuzzFeed, “Romney proposed a $50 fee for tuberculosis tests and wanted to charge a $400 fee if the person tested positive.” [BuzzFeed, 6/20/12]

Romney’s Plan Could Raise Taxes on SUV Owners. According to MetroWest Daily News, “Romney’s plan to reduce pollution could also require owners of new SUVs and other gas-guzzlers to pay a higher automobile excise tax.” [MetroWest Daily News, 9/5/02]

Romney Proposed Tax On Open-Space Development. According to the Boston Globe, “In his housing and anti-sprawl plan released on July 1, 2002, Romney proposed adding fees on developers that build in areas where open space is already limited. Romney suggested using the collected fees to fund development in underdeveloped areas.” [Boston Globe, 7/2/02]

Romney’s Housing Plan Included A “Green Space” Fee On Builders. According to the Boston Globe, “Romney on housing? Point 1 of his eight-point plan is to impose a new ‘green space’ fee on builders.” [Boston Globe, 10/6/02]

Other Taxes And Fees

Romney Had Lengthy List Of Fee Increases While Governor Of Massachusetts. According to BuzzFeed, “Mitt Romney often hits President Obama for calling for tax increases on the wealthiest Americans. But a Democratic source forwards to this rather lengthy list of fees Romney raised in Massachusetts. He was struggling to close a budget gap without raising taxes; but many of which citizens of the state saw them hidden tax increases nonetheless.” [BuzzFeed, 6/20/12]

Romney Proposed Increasing Fees On First Responders. According to BuzzFeed, “Romney proposed a $100 biannual fee on first responders for the ability to flash their vehicles lights. Romney doubled fees for the certification of EMTs from $75 to $150 per person. The cost of certifying an ambulance equipped for basic life support doubled from $200 to $400.” [BuzzFeed, 6/20/12]

Romney Wanted To Increase Fees On Golf Season Passes. According to BuzzFeed, “Romney attempted to raise golf season passes from $50 to $150. Daily golfing fees went from $17 to $22 for 18 holes, and from $15 to $17 for nine holes.” [BuzzFeed, 6/20/12]

Romney Increased Fee For Cremation Inspection. According to BuzzFeed, “Romney increased the fee for a cremation inspection from $50 to $75.” [BuzzFeed, 6/20/12]

Romney Proposed Increasing Fees For Inmate Phone Calls. According to BuzzFeed, “Romney proposed increasing the charge for an inmate to make a phone call from 86 cents to $2.” [BuzzFeed, 6/20/12]

Romney Proposed Increasing Fee For Drivers Permits. According to BuzzFeed, “Romney proposed an increase in the drivers permit fee that would double the cost from $15 to $30.” [BuzzFeed, 6/20/12]

Romney Proposed Increasing Gun License Fees. According to BuzzFeed, “Romney proposed raising the gun licensing fee from $25 to $75. The state legislature increased to $100.” [BuzzFeed, 6/20/12]

Romney Doubled The Fee For Cottage Use In State Parks. According to BuzzFeed, “The Romney administration doubled the fee to use a cottage in a state park from the price originally set in 1989.” [BuzzFeed, 6/20/12]

Romney Increased Group Skating Fees At Some Massachusetts Ice Rinks. According to BuzzFeed, “The Romney administration raised hourly group skating fees at some ice rinks, which went from $15 and $40.” [BuzzFeed, 6/20/12]

Romney Increased Fees For Barber’s Licenses. According to BuzzFeed, “Romney increased the fee for a master barber license application from $38 to $57 and the fee to renew a barber’s license from $45 To $68.” [BuzzFeed, 6/20/12]

Romney Increased Fees For Hairdresser Licenses. According to BuzzFeed, “Romney increased the fee for a hairdresser shop license application from $75 to $113.” [BuzzFeed, 6/20/12]

Romney Increased Fees For Pharmacist Licenses. According to BuzzFeed, “Romney increased the fee for a pharmacist license application from $56 to $75.” [BuzzFeed, 6/20/12]

Romney Increased Fees For Plumbers Licenses. According to BuzzFeed, “Romney increased the fee on a master plumber’s license from $45 to $68.” [BuzzFeed, 6/20/12]

Romney Increase Fees For Psychologists Licenses. According to BuzzFeed, “Romney increased the fee for a psychologist license from $100 to $150 in 2003.” [BuzzFeed, 6/20/12]

Romney Increased Fees For Real Estate Licenses. According to BuzzFeed, “Romney increased the fee to get a real estate salesman license from $18 to $27 and the fee to renew a license from $45 to $68.” [BuzzFeed, 6/20/12]

Romney Increased Fees For Home Inspection Licenses. According to BuzzFeed, “Romney increased the fee for a home inspector license from $225 to $338 and increased the renewal fee from $150 to $225.” [BuzzFeed, 6/20/12]

Romney Increased Fees For Motor Vehicle Repair Shop Licenses. According to BuzzFeed, “Romney increased the fee for a motor vehicle repair shop license from $100-a-year to $450 for a three year license.” [BuzzFeed, 6/20/12]

Romney Increased Fees For Filing For Divorce. According to BuzzFeed, “Romney increased the fee for filing for divorce from $140 to $200.” [BuzzFeed, 6/20/12]

Romney Increased Fees For Changing One’s Name. According to BuzzFeed, “Romney increased the fee to change your name from $70 to $150.” [BuzzFeed, 6/20/12]

Romney Increased Fees For Milk Laboratory Certificates.  According to BuzzFeed, “Romney increased the fee for milk laboratory certificate from $75 to $150.” [BuzzFeed, 6/20/12]

Romney Increased Fees For Funeral Directors License Renewal. According to BuzzFeed, “Romney increased the fee to renew a funeral directors license from $56 To $84.” [BuzzFeed, 6/20/12]

Poll shows widening racial gap in presidential contest

By Jon Cohen and Rosalind S. Helderman (The Washington Post)

The 2012 election is shaping up to be more polarized along racial lines than any presidential contest since 1988, with President Obama experiencing a steep drop in support among white voters from four years ago.

At this stage in 2008, Obama trailed Republican John McCain by seven percentage points among white voters. Even in victory, Obama ended up losing white voters by 12 percentage points, according to that year’s exit poll.

But now, Obama has a deficit of 23 percentage points, trailing Republican Mitt Romney 60 percent to 37 percent among whites, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News national tracking poll. That presents a significant hurdle for the president — and suggests that he will need to achieve even larger margins of victory among women and minorities, two important parts of the Democratic base, to win reelection.

Overall, Romney has edged ahead in the contest, garnering 50 percent of likely voters for the first time in the campaign, according to the Post-ABC poll. As Romney hits 50 percent, the president stands at 47 percent, his lowest tally since before the national party conventions.

The three-point edge gives Romney his first apparent — but not statistically significant — advantage in the national popular vote. The challenger has a clear nine-point lead when it comes to whom voters trust to handle the economy, which has long been the central issue of the contest. He has also effectively neutralized what has been a consistent fallback for Obama: economic empathy.

Romney’s momentum in these areas comes from improvements against the president among white voters.

The slippage among whites is something of a setback for Obama, who campaigned on bridging the racial divide in his election and has sought to minimize rifts that have arisen in his presidency. Although Democrats typically win minorities and fare worse among white voters than their Republican rivals, Obama outpaced previous losing Democratic candidates with both groups.

Less than two weeks before the election, the evidence suggests that a much more sharply divided country will head to the polls.

As he did in 2008, Obama gets overwhelming support from nonwhites, who made up a record high proportion of the overall electorate four years ago.

In that contest, 80 percent of all nonwhites supported Obama, including 95 percent of black voters, according to the exit poll. In the Post-ABC tracking poll released Thursday, Obama again draws support from 80 percent of nonwhites, and backing for his reelection is nearly universal among African Americans. In other words, Romney appears to have made no inroads in chipping away at Obama’s support among Hispanics and African Americans.

Dismal support for Republicans among minorities is a long-term problem for the GOP in a rapidly diversifying nation. Fully 91 percent of Romney’s support comes from white voters.

At the same time, Democrats cannot count on the share of the white vote continuing to drop as it has in recent years. The share of white voters in the Post-ABC polling is similar to what it was in 2008, when whites made up a record-low 74 percent of all voters.

The erosion of support Obama has experienced since his muted performance in the first presidential debate has been particularly acute among white men, whites without college degrees and white independents, the new tracking poll found.

Nearly half of all of those who supported Obama in 2008 but now say they back Romney are white independents. Overall, whites make up more than 90 percent of such vote “switchers.”

Romney’s advantage here comes even as 48 percent of white voters in the tracking data released Monday said Romney, as president, would do more to favor the wealthy; 37 percent said he would do more for the middle class. Most whites, with and without college educations, saw Obama as doing more to favor those in the middle, not the wealthy.

There is no way to tell from these findings what role, if any, racial prejudice may play on either side of the racial gap. But the data suggest that concern about the economy is amplifying the division, as Obama’s decline in support among white voters appears to be closely linked to views of his handling of the economy. And yet minorities have suffered severe unemployment and housing foreclosures in the current economy as well.

Asked about declining support for Obama among white voters — and about the percentage of such voters necessary for victory — Obama spokesman Adam Fetcher said only that Obama would be better for middle-class voters than Romney.

“Middle-class Americans, regardless of age, gender or race, have a clear choice in this election. Whether it’s on the stump or by mobilizing grass-roots volunteers in neighborhoods across the country, President Obama is working to tell every American about his concrete, detailed plan to move America forward, get folks back to work and strengthen the middle class,” he said.

The national polling data do mask important regional differences.

Even though Obama lost white voters overall in 2008, he won 50 percent or more of their votes in 18 states and the District.

And some state-by-state polling has indicated that Obama is performing better among white voters in key states he needs to collect the 270 electoral college votes to win reelection.

In Ohio this year, he trails Romney by six percentage points among whites in a new poll by Time magazine, far under his margin nationally. In Ohio, Romney is winning white men by nearly 20 points, 56 percent to 38 percent, but white women are breaking narrowly for the president, 49 percent to 43 percent.

Obama won in 2008 in part by raising his support among minority voters — and boosting the percentage of minorities who voted. But it also came by outperforming past Democratic candidates among whites.

In capturing 43 percent of the white vote for president, Obama performed better than any Democrat since Bill Clinton, who won 43 percent in a three-way split in 1996. Clinton’s effort had represented the best effort for a Democrat among white voters in two decades.

Those gains appear likely to be erased this year.

In a rapidly diversifying country, the percentage of the nation’s population that is white drops 2 percent every four years, said David Bositis, a senior research associate at the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies. And even among white voters, Republicans perform best among older voters, who will age out of the voting rolls in coming years.

Without improving tallies with minorities, Bositis said, “I think this will be the peak for Republicans.”

“The formula they have right now is a long-term loser,” he said.

In 1988, the last time there was such a prominent racial gap, white voters sided with George H.W. Bush over Michael Dukakis by 59 percent to 40 percent, with nonwhites breaking 78 percent to 20 percent for the Democrat. Were Obama to slip into the 30s among white voters this year, it would be the first time for a Democrat in a two-way race since Walter Mondale did so in 1984, losing white voters to President Ronald Reagan by 64 percent to 35 percent.

Scott Clement contributed to this report.

John Sununu, a top adviser to Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign, suggested Thursday that Colin Powell endorsed President Obama because both men are African American.

Asked Thursday on CNN about Powell’s endorsement, Sununu said the endorsement might be for reasons other than policy.

“Frankly, when you take a look at Colin Powell, you have to wonder whether that’s an endorsement based on issues or whether he’s got a slightly different reason for preferring President Obama,” Sununu said.

Asked what those might be, Sununu pointed to race.

“Well, I think when you have somebody of your own race that you’re proud of being president of the United States, I applaud Colin for standing with him,” Sununu said.

Sununu, a former New Hampshire governor and White House chief of staff, is a frequent Romney surrogate and is known for his blunt commentary.

Powell, a Republican who served as secretary of state under President George W. Bush and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under President George H.W. Bush, also endorsed Obama in 2008.

The Romney campaign didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on Sununu’s remarks.

Update 12:15 a.m.: Sununu, in a statement released by the Romney campaign, is now backing off his assertion.

“Colin Powell is a friend, and I respect the endorsement decision he made, and I do not doubt that it was based on anything but his support of the President’s policies,” Sununu said. “Piers Morgan’s question was whether Colin Powell should leave the party, and I don’t think he should.”

In June 1983, Romney and his family drove from their Belmont, Massachusetts home to a family cottage in Beach O’Pines, Ontario, for their annual vacation. Seamus rode on the roof of the family’s Chevrolet Caprice station wagon, in a carrier which Romney had equipped with a windshield in order to make the ride more comfortable for Seamus. Sometime during the 650-mile trip from Massachusetts to Ontario, the dog became afflicted with diarrhea, causing excrement to flow down the windows of the car. Romney stopped at a gas station to wash Seamus, the carrier and the car, then put Seamus back in his carrier, and continued the 12-hour trip to the family’s vacation home. Ann Romney, Mitt Romney’s wife, stated that Seamus got diarrhea from eating turkey off the table before the trip, and that the dog loved the crate.
According to Russell Cummings, a professor of aerospace engineering at California Polytechnic State University, Seamus could have had around three pounds (ten pounds per square foot) of air pressure pressing against his head during the trip. The Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals declined to comment on the legality of Romney’s actions, but noted that it is illegal in Massachusetts to transport a dog “in a way that endangers it.” Ingrid Newkirk, the president of the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) labeled the incident as animal cruelty and torture.

Sheldon Adelson: Casino magnate, mega-donor is a man of many motives

By Marc Fisher (The Washington Post)

When casino magnate Sheldon Adelson switched his support from Newt Gingrich to Mitt Romney during the spring primaries, the billionaire and the candidate were eager to shed their skepticism of each other. If Adelson was going to give a political campaign more money than anyone ever had, he wanted to be certain Romney would join him in steadfast support of Israel. And Romney, according to friends of both, sought assurance that Adelson wouldn’t embarrass him.

Since then, Adelson has joined Romney during the candidate’s visit to Israel this summer, attended presidential debates and gotten together with Romney so often that their wives have become friends, according to confidants of the two men.

Mourdock: Pregnancy from rape can be ‘something that God intended. Although Adelson, 79, has said he will give $100 million to help Romney and quash President Obama’s “socialist-style” approach to the economy, he remains skeptical, believing that politicians don’t deliver on promises and can’t be trusted.

“Many people who give very significant donations to political campaigns come to me afterwards very frustrated that they don’t get what they wanted once the person is elected,” says Morton Klein, president of the Zionist Organization of America, which Adelson has supported for years. “Sheldon doesn’t expect people to change. He’s very realistic about politics.”

Adelson — whose gambling operations span the globe from Las Vegas to casinos open or planned in Macau, Singapore and Spain — tells friends he finds the way U.S. elections are funded to be abhorrent, putting too much power in the hands of a wealthy few. So as one of those wealthy few, why would he pour more money into a campaign than 65 average Americans will earn in their combined lifetimes?

Adelson would not agree to an interview unless he could screen all questions in advance, a condition The Washington Post declined to meet. But more than 20 friends, critics, colleagues and beneficiaries portray a man with several motives for his massive donations to political, religious and medical causes.

He’s a scrappy fighter who defends what is his, a self-made man who held more than 50 jobs before striking gold with his Venetian casino on the Vegas Strip, and he has developed a powerful aversion to taxes and unions. He is the 12th-richest person in the nation, according to Forbes magazine, with a fortune valued at $21 billion. ­Under Obama, Adelson has achieved a larger increase in his wealth than anyone else in the country. In the past two decades, he has also undergone a political conversion, from a Massachusetts Democrat who considered Republicans to be the establishment that resisted newcomers like him, to a Nevada Republican who believes that his former party coddles the idle and has fallen captive to identity politics.

Adelson is driven by the idea of Israel as a muscular riposte to the Holocaust. Based on his experience as a Jewish kid who would get insulted and roughed up in a tough Boston neighborhood, Adelson believes Jewish Americans should back an Israel that puts security first and resists compromise with Arabs who do not accept its existence.

“Israel is at the core of everything he does,” says Fred Zeidman, a friend of Adelson, fellow Romney backer and former chairman of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum.

Adelson is something of a paradox. Jewish friends and foes alike call him a “shtarker” — a Yiddish term for a tough guy — yet his pattern of giving supports both his own business interests and more selfless pursuits, such as the more than $100 million he has given to Birthright Israel, a program that sends young American Jews on all-expenses-paid trips to the Jewish state.

His political giving backs his belief in an elbows-out capitalism in which entrepreneurs fight for profits and markets with the least possible regulation, but the vast sums he has given to medical science ask researchers to shelve their competitive instincts for the social good.

Whatever field he toils in, Adelson is “in­cred­ibly stick-to-itive,” says Michael Leven, president of Adelson’s Las Vegas Sands Corp. “He stands up for what he believes in. That’s why lawsuits happen.”

Adelson has been involved in legal conflicts with business competitors, unions, even his children — in one 10-year period, he was involved in more than 150 suits in Clark County alone, which includes Las Vegas.

In a suit in which his sons alleged that Adelson defrauded them by pressing them to sell stock for less than its fair value, a Massachusetts judge wrote in 2001 that Adelson was “a harsh, demanding, unfeeling, successful businessman” who was “perhaps lacking paternal kindness and, indeed, cordiality generally.” But the judge ruled for Adelson, saying he had neither misled nor cheated his children.

He does not shy from spending on himself and his wife, Miriam, an Israeli physician who focuses on treating drug addicts. He flies in his own Boeing 747, is driven in a Maybach and has expansive homes in Malibu and Las Vegas. He moves around with burly bodyguards who defend him against enemies, and against those asking undesirable questions.

Childhood friend Irwin Chafetz says that when he worked with him, he sometimes backed away from confronting Adelson, who even friends describe as bullheaded and aggressive. “A lot of times, people don’t want to aggravate him, so they just stand aside and let him do what he’s going to do,” Chafetz says. “In the end, all of us who have enjoyed financial success because of him say we are where we are because he is the way he is.”

Yet Adelson knows how he can come off. Leven tells of meeting in Las Vegas with officials from Vietnam about a possible business location there. “Sheldon didn’t like the location, so he had me meet with them because I would be more tactful,” Leven says. “He would tell them, ‘Your location stinks,’ whereas I talked to them and, next thing you know, I’m going on a helicopter ride to the site next time I’m in Vietnam.”

But Adelson also makes his jets available to employees who need medical care. He bails out childhood friends who have fallen on hard times. Every year, he flies dozens of battle-torn veterans on an all-expenses-paid trip to Vegas.

Adelson has no business degree — indeed, no degree of any kind. He knew little about computers or casinos before entering the fields that would make him rich. He says his success stems from his determination “to challenge and change the status quo.”

Critics say his overriding goal is to solidify control of markets in which he does business.

Friends and foes say Adelson gets what he wants by relentlessly protecting his turf, spending liberally on his product and making himself valuable to those who can help him succeed.

“He’s been a fighter all his life,” Leven says. “He’s physically short in stature and he never graduated from college, so he has to be more tenacious. It’s an effort to get ahead.”

Childhood in Boston

As World War II raged across the ocean, in a neighborhood of south Boston that was home to more Jews than any American city outside New York, kids like Sheldon Adelson learned that being a Jew in America both put a target on their backs and gave them a blessed refuge.

Like other Jewish teens in Dorchester, young Sheldon was occasionally beaten up by Irish kids full of anti-Semitic vinegar. Yet he knew that millions of other Jews faced vastly worse enemies in Europe.

Other Jewish boys found refuge in street games such as stickball and halfball, but Sheldon was never interested in sports, friends say. “He was interested in making money,” Chafetz says. Before he got to high school, Adelson bought the right to sell newspapers on a busy street corner.

Adelson sold windshield cleaners, stocked vending machines and, then, as a young man, scored on a travel agency he launched with old buddies. The profits allowed him to move to a more upscale area, into a house that boasted its own bowling alley.

These days, Adelson calls the place he came from “the slums,” and he has donated more than $50 million to support Jewish schools in the Las Vegas and Boston areas. Add his gifts to Birthright and $50 million given to Israel’s Yad Vashem (making the Adelsons that Holocaust museum’s largest donor), and Adelson’s support for Jewish causes vastly outstrips his political donations.

Adelson’s passion for Israel does not stem from religious devotion; he is not a regular at synagogue, does not speak much Hebrew, and is neither kosher nor Sabbath-observant, says Klein, who is both.

When Adelson first visited the Holy Land, he wore his father’s shoes as he stepped off the plane so something of his father’s would be the first to touch the ground.

Like Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whom he visits regularly, Adelson believes the Jewish state’s neighbors have proved unwilling to accept its existence.

To promote his view, Adelson five years ago launched a free tabloid, Israel Today, that has become the No. 1 newspaper in Israel and a loyal booster of Netanyahu, leading critics to charge that a foreign investor is having undue influence on domestic affairs.

Adelson’s attachment to Israel dates back decades, so few friends were surprised when, after his divorce, “he asked friends to fix him up only with Israelis,” Klein recalls. Adelson was introduced to Miriam Ochsorn, now 66. They married in 1991.

Adelson’s passion for Israel did not develop into Republican activism until the past two decades. Well into adulthood, he was a Democrat, making large donations to the party until 1996. The next year, he switched to the GOP.

“As Jews in Boston, no one voted Republican, because the Republicans were the establishment,” Leven says. “But Sheldon saw the Democrats becoming less passionate about Israel.”

Friends say two shifts in Adelson’s thinking led to his party switch. On Israel, “he saw the left as more compromising, and Sheldon is not a great compromiser,” Chafetz says.

And Adelson’s opposition to unions alienated him from Democrats.

“What makes him anti-union is not the money,” Chafetz says. “It’s the union rules. He changed philosophically. He doesn’t want to be told he has to have four people do the job if two people can do it. Sheldon is all about accomplishment. It rules his life.”

Union fight in Nevada

When Adelson took on Nevada’s largest union, the Culinary Workers Union, labor groups portrayed him as a bully intent on making money on the backs of workers.

The result was a battle royal. Starting in the 1990s, Adelson and the union fought for years over whether the union could demonstrate on sidewalks outside his hotel. (The workers won.)

Adelson’s $1.5 billion Venetian remains the only major casino on the Strip that is not unionized. The culinary union rejects Adelson’s claim that he provides his 6,300 workers with better pay and benefits than they would get under union contracts.

“He’s refused to speak to us,” says D. Taylor, secretary-treasurer of the union local. “This is not at all about money — it’s about power. Look, there are a lot of people who grew up poor. That’s not an excuse. The workers know they are at the mercy of the boss. This is someone who will come after you.”

Adelson says that when he believes he has been wronged, he will take action. “If people do something he considers underhanded,” Chafetz says, “he’s not going to let them get away with it.”

Adelson sued the Las Vegas convention authority over its expansion plans. He fought his sons for seven years. And this summer, he sued the National Jewish Democratic Council for $60 million after it posted an article saying he “personally approved of prostitution in his Macau casinos.”

The lawsuit came a week after the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee apologized to Adelson for making the same allegation on its site. The original statement came from a lawsuit in which one of his former executives, Steve Jacobs, alleges that the billionaire condoned prostitution at his Macau casino, which Adelson vehemently denies.

Jacobs’s allegations are now the basis of investigations by the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission into whether Adelson’s company violated federal law banning bribery in foreign countries, according to federal sources, who said the probe is not expected to be completed before the November elections.

Adelson has been known to cut off those who disagree with his worldview. In 2007, when the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which Adelson had supported financially, decided to support increased aid to the Palestinian Authority, Adelson halted his gifts to AIPAC.

But Adelson has remained supportive of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum despite his view, according to three friends, that it is run by liberals and its programming leans left.

In 2004, Adelson developed a neurological problem that made it difficult for him to walk. He went from specialist to specialist. There was no clear diagnosis, no certain treatment.

He approached Bruce Dobkin, a neurologist at UCLA. After learning about the cumbersome ways in which medical research is funded and conducted, Adelson decided to launch an experiment. He set up a fund and asked Dobkin to recruit researchers who would collaborate to get results faster. The approach was a far cry from Adelson’s individualistic style in politics and business.

“In the political arena, he doesn’t want to pay any more taxes than he has to, and he hates unions, and he wants to make sure Israel survives,” Dobkin says. “He has no illusions that politicians will solve problems. He doesn’t ask them to be collaborative.”

But on social issues, Dobkin says, “the Adelsons are much more empathetic and liberal, in a sense, than people think.”

Part of that softer side stems from Adelson’s anguish over his two sons from his first marriage, both of whom struggled with drugs. Mitchell died of an overdose in 2005; Gary says he does not want to talk about his father, because they are rekindling ties after years of friction.

Adelson announced that he would spend “billions” on medical research. But it was not clear that the collaboration model would work. At a meeting with Adelson, a researcher from Harvard said he loved the idea but asked, “Who’s going to get credit?”

“I thought that was the death knell,” Dobkin recalls, “but then Sheldon perks up and says: ‘How many papers did Jonas Salk write? . . . Do you want to be remembered as the guy who wrote 200 or 300 papers or the guy who actually found a treatment that helps people?’ ”

The Harvard guy signed up. In the first years, Adelson researchers published hundreds of articles and shared results openly. Then came the financial collapse of 2008, drying up funding.

Leven says his boss remains committed to research. He acknowledges that the Adelson who plays political hardball may look very different from the philanthropist who preaches the gospel of collective research. But in the end, it’s all about getting what you want.

“In business, he doesn’t need cooperation from [casino magnate] Steve Wynn or MGM,” Leven says. “But in medicine, he found he could get a better result with a cooperative approach. He’s just being pragmatic. Sheldon is not a complex person. What you see is what you get.”

Due to popular demand after November 6th, 2012 The Amazing Democrats will continue. We are looking for very dedicated committee members to be very actively involved with us. We will have many issues on our agenda but they will be mainly local ones like the homeless issue in San Francisco, the recall of San Francisco’s Sheriff, etc. On the National level we will be pursuing (once the President is reelected) Immigration Policies and Procedures. We have already presented our ten point pro action plan for the homeless issue to the Mayor and city supervisors of San Francisco. We also will assist candidates who want to take office for the City, State Senate, Congress and the Senate and even Presidential candidates in future elections.  The Amazing Democrats will have a co-chair which we will announce shortly.

By MICHAEL CIEPLY and BRIAN STELTER (The New York Times)

Thanks to the magic of editing, President Obama will have a starring role in a television drama about one of his biggest accomplishments — the killing of Osama bin Laden — that will be shown just two nights before the presidential election.

But the star turn is virtually certain to bolster claims that the approximately 90-minute film amounts to a political stunt. Set for a prime-time debut on Nov. 4 on the National Geographic Channel, and a release the next day on Netflix, the film — “SEAL Team Six: The Raid on Osama bin Laden” — is being backed by Harvey Weinstein, a longtime Democratic contributor and one of the Obama campaign’s most vigorous backers. Mr. Weinstein bought the rights to the film for about $2.5 million at the Cannes festival in May.

It tells the story of the hunt by intelligence operatives and Navy commandos for Bin Laden, who was killed on May 2, 2011, in Pakistan.

But promotional materials and a copy of the movie provided to The New York Times this week also show that the film has been recut, using news and documentary footage to strengthen Mr. Obama’s role and provide a window into decision-making in the White House.

In a joint interview on Tuesday Mr. Weinstein; the film’s director, John Stockwell; and others said the changes to the film were not politically motivated but were meant to give the film a stronger sense of realism. Some of the Obama moments were added at the suggestion of Mr. Weinstein, they said, using material gathered by Meghan O’Hara, a producer who worked closely with the documentarian Michael Moore on politically charged projects like “Fahrenheit 9/11” and “Sicko.”

But Mr. Stockwell said he had included Mr. Obama as a character in his film from the beginning, and had actually shrunk his screen time somewhat. And Howard T. Owens, the chief executive of the National Geographic Channel, who joined the call, said his company had insisted on removing a scene that showed Mitt Romney appearing to oppose the raid.

“We wouldn’t air this if it were propaganda,” he said.

The scenes featuring Mr. Obama include an opening with him at the annual White House correspondents’ dinner just a day before the raid (which was added by Ms. O’Hara); another that catches him on a long, lonely walk as he presumably deliberates his weighty decision; and — without getting too deeply into spoilers — another that finds him declaring at the end, “Justice has been done.”

Mr. Obama and his camp offered no input in the making or timing of the film, Mr. Weinstein and Mr. Owens said. Mr. Weinstein added that he had supported Republican candidates like George E. Pataki, the former New York governor, and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg of New York.

Representatives of the Obama campaign did not immediately respond to queries about the movie.

In an essay that was part of the film’s press kit, “Can a Movie Swing an Election?,” which was posted online last Wednesday at politicsdaily.com, Mr. Stockwell acknowledged that some people were suspicious of the film’s intentions, but he insisted that its origins were not political. Instead, he said, he had been struck, in fact, by “what a terrible ‘political’ decision” Mr. Obama made in authorizing the mission.

In the same piece, however, Mr. Stockwell, whose directing credits include the horror film “Turistas” and the surf drama “Blue Crush,” said that Mr. Weinstein, after buying the movie, “came into the edit room” and suggested a revision that “gave the movie context and helped root it in reality.”

For the National Geographic Channel, whose majority owner is Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, the film is a marketing opportunity — a reason for people who would otherwise never look for the channel on their cable lineup to seek it. The channel is available in 85 million homes in the United States, but it is relatively low rated, ranking 37th among cable channels in prime time.

Mr. Owens, of National Geographic, said recently that the pre-election premiere date was selected “to take advantage of our fall schedule” of shows, which will have their premieres in the days and weeks after “SEAL Team Six.” “Other than being commercially opportunistic, we weren’t considering the election,” Mr. Owens said.

Asked if he thought the timing of the election would benefit the film, he said, “I think we will benefit by being first to the market,” by beating the bigger-budget feature “Zero Dark Thirty.”

For months Mr. Weinstein’s film has been stuck in the shadow of that film about the Bin Laden raid, which was made by the director Kathryn Bigelow and the writer-producer Mark Boal, who teamed up on the Oscar-winning best picture “The Hurt Locker.”

The Boal-Bigelow project is set for theatrical release by Sony Pictures Entertainment on Dec. 19, at the height of the awards season. But that film, too, has repeatedly been snared in questions about its political intent.

Originally scheduled to open before the election, it was delayed until December after some suggested it would be used to help Mr. Obama’s prospects by dramatizing one of his signature achievements.

Congressional overseers suggested that administration officials overstepped in providing access to information about the Bin Laden raid, and the close cooperation between officials and the filmmakers was chronicled after the watchdog group Judicial Watch used the Freedom of Information Act to obtain documents related to the film.

In press materials Mr. Stockwell has said that his sources were “ex-Navy SEALS and sources within the intelligence community” who spoke to him and the film’s writer, Kendall Lampkin.

Beyond the political issues, the film may carry the risk of associating Mr. Obama with any backlash in a Muslim world already inflamed by the YouTube trailer for an insulting film portrayal of its prophet. In September riots erupted in Libya, Egypt and elsewhere as Muslim crowds reacted violently to what they perceived as the unforgivable insults of a scratch production, “The Innocence of Muslims,” some of which was posted on YouTube.

Nothing in “SEAL Team Six” recalls the anti-Muslim tones of that film. But the new film’s portrayals of the jeopardy to Muslim children during the assault on Bin Laden’s compound, and its graphic references to — but not portrayals of — torture in the war on terror may step toward the risk zone.

National Geographic has yet to market the film aggressively, but that will change next week when it starts running ads in print and on other networks. While “SEAL Team Six” will not be seen in theaters, National Geographic and Mr. Weinstein have scheduled splashy movie theater premieres in Washington and New York and regional screenings in Chicago and Philadelphia.