A story of importance to everyone in the states are under attack. Such underhanded attempts at passing laws favorable to certain businesses demand an alert electorate willing to do a bit of research before blindly voting for what seems to be a good thing.

Destroy the community to put money in your own pocket, and the public should be informed. The allegations seem credible.

Missing from the story is the evidence of the connection between Connerly and the construction industry. That Connerly earns a living by not for profit fronting for ithe construction ndustry is believable. However the author provides no source for this assertion which limits the credibility of the artcile. And the MS suggestion that a longer Version is available for money smacks of a crassness.

Wishewashe journalism without nailing down the connections between biz and the non-profit. Some merit must be given due to the under-reported story and the naming of names! A tired rant which seems to tread the same old line the old WASP men run the world and if they have a momentary populist setback, they dig in a find a way around public interest. Report seems true, I missed the links to go with all the data.

The best line is the last one--quoting Connerly as saying, "I'm not your typical executive." No, he's not. He's a shill and a liar. He lets big money interests use his black skin for a cut of the fat profits his deceptive laws save or earn them. While the article just barely scratches the surface of this topic, it does at least point out how the authors of these bills lie about them to get them passed.

What's interesting about this report is that "if Connerly and the initiatives' other proponents have their way, the term "affirmative action" will not appear on the ballot or be talked about in the campaign -- that's because most voters support the concept. The debate will instead focus on whether "unqualified" minorities are admitted to public colleges and universities over "more qualified" (i.e., white) students. What has never been widely reported in the coverage of Connerly's ... More »

I believe that this article is misclassified as news analysis in that it clearly has a bias and makes no pretense of looking beyond one side of the issue. As an opinion piece, however, it is quite effective in that it pulls information from reputable objective sources (like the IRS) that sends up red flags. It is disconcerting, though, that it alleges illegality and refers to comments made by two Congressment a year and a half ago but does not discuss the status of any legal action.

This a poor article which is very one sided and fails to connect the points.

Sorry excuse for journalism. I believe it, of course, because this is the sort of thing that goes on all the time, but I have to condemn it for lack of sources. I'm also not sure what it was doing on NewsTrust, since it's just an abridged version of a story available only in print.

The topic is an important one. the effectiveness of the formula used by Connerly will be of interest to others who have issues to promote. If he is successful, setting a precedent for using a non-profit shield will be as effective as wiping out affirmative action.

Ward Connerly has waged a brave crusade against racial preferences for many years. Even when the entire establishment was against him his ballot measures have won, as recently happened in Michigan. It is hardly surprising that Ms. magazine is attacking him and distorting the issues. After all, Ms. magazine is part of the establishment. As we all know affirmative action is a code word for unfair preferences for certain groups that have political power.

I've seen the damage Prop. 209 has done to recruitment of minority students in the University of California system. These initiatives must be stopped!

This opinion piece has little merit. The author criticizes Ward Connerly without having read anything about his background and the rationale for his views. "Affirmative Action" has done serious harm to blacks in particular, as documented by many economists such as Thomas Sowell. The author should have studied his widely-available writings before starting on this piece. This lack of sourcing lowers the ratings of the piece as journalism.