This evening, Mitt Romney is hosting a policy-conference-slash-fundraiser where lobbyists and executives for Wall Street, big oil, health insurance, and more can meet with him and his policy advisers for $10,000 per person.

In other words, Romney is selling influence to the highest bidders.

In response, Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz joined a group of concerned citizens who had gathered outside the policy conference to call out Romney.

She told reporters who had gathered that in her many years of elected office, she'd never seen anyone tie together policymaking and fundraising so tightly—and should concern all Americans that a potential president would so shamelessly sell his policy positions to the special interests.

"I'm sure it's no coincidence Mitt Romney has committed to repealing Wall Street reform while selling tickets to this conference to Wall Street executives and lobbyists for $10,000. That's why I'm here today with our supporters to call Romney out on his web of Washington influence that he has consistently created. Not only is it hypocritical. It's outrageous, and it demonstrates that Romney is the typical Washington-style politician he criticizes. It's something we're not going to allow him to get away with.

"It's unbelievable that Romney would have a policy conference and tie policy decisions to contributions, particularly contributions in the amount of $10,000 and more. That's the kind of special-interest influence we need to rid of in politics—but that Romney clearly would continue and expand.

"His campaign is essentially saying, come to this policy conference. Give us $10,000, and we will make sure we give you the policy you are buying at this event. That's unacceptable."

Want to see just how interconnected Romney's Washington web of influence is? Check out this infographic.

It's a story we've come to know all too well: Millions of responsible Americans bought a piece of the American Dream, got a mortgage they could afford, and made their house payments. But they were still hurt by predatory lenders who issued loans to people who couldn't afford them and by banks that traded risky mortgages for huge profits. In the worst housing crisis in generations, 4 million families lost their home to foreclosure.

But today, President Obama made a major announcement that will help struggling homeowners get back on their feet: His administration, working with attorneys general from nearly every state, has stood up to the big banks and stood up for struggling homeowners in an unprecedented way. They've reached a landmark settlement with the nation's largest banks to bring relief to the hardest-hit homeowners and end some of the mortgage industry's most abusive practices. This is the largest civil settlement since the tobacco industry deal in 1998.

Here's how it will help homeowners: The biggest American banks, the ones that were rescued by taxpayer dollars in 2008, will be required to put billions of dollars toward homeowner relief. They'll offer refinancing for borrowers who have high interest-rate mortgages. They'll reduce loans for families who owe more than their homes are worth. And, according to the President, "they will deliver some measure of justice for families that have already been victims of abusive practices."

The contrast couldn't be more stark between President Obama's efforts on behalf of American homeowners and Republican front-runner Mitt Romney's utter lack of concern for their plight. As he campaigns for the Republican presidential nomination, Romney has yet to offer a single proposal to lend a hand to America's struggling homeowners, make it easier for them to refinance their homes, or help them avoid foreclosure.

Instead of proposing ways to help responsible homeowners get relief, Romney's philosophy is, "Don't try and stop the foreclosure process. Let it run its course and hit the bottom."

Learn more at RomneyHousingPlan.com.

When attacking his opponents, Romney likes to say he's no Washington insider. But that's just the pot calling the kettle black. Romney has raised more money from Washington lobbyists than the rest of the Republican field combined.

Today he's holding a high-dollar fundraiser in Washington and selling access to lobbyists and special-interest groups. He's meeting with influencers with deep ties to Wall Street, big oil, and the insurance industry. Today's "policy meeting" is a glimpse into the major web of influence in Romney's world: As millions of dollars flow into Romney's campaign fund from special-interest heavy hitters like these, Romney is taking positions that will directly benefit their industries.

Here's Mitt Romney's version of a web of influence:

• "If you work on Wall Street or lobby for the big banks and financial institutions, give money to my campaign, and I'll promise to repeal consumer protections an Wall Street Reform. I'll even let your industry write its own rules again."
• "If you are a health insurance executive or lobby for them, give money to my campaign, and I'll promise to let you start discriminating against Americans with pre-existing conditions again when I repeal the Affordable Care Act."
• "If you are a corporate raider like I was, making millions by destroying companies and lives, give to my campaign, an I'll ensure your (and my) tax rate remains lower than your assistant's—and I'll slash your taxes even more."
• "If you are an oil company executive or lobby for big oil, give money to my campaign, and I'll protect your billions of dollars in subsidies even as you are making historic profits."

Share the infographic above and our latest web video laying out the vast web of special interests that have a financial interest in the positions Romney has staked out.

Yesterday we told you about how Romney is in the midst of attacking the President for providing women with the very same access to contraception that he did as governor of Massachusetts. In fact, the law that Massachusetts passed while Romney was governor and the federal law he now denounces are nearly identical in requiring contraception, including emergency contraception, to be covered by health insurance.

But today a new twist in the plot surfaced—and it makes Romney's hypocrisy even more breathtaking.

Think Progress is reporting that "the very same GOP frontrunner who is now petitioning the White House to extend the regulation's conscience clause and exclude more women from the benefits of birth control is himself invested in and profiting from pharmaceutical companies that produce the frequently prescribed and extremely common medication."

Romney's Goldman Sachs 2002 Exchange Place Fund was valued at more than $1 million in 2010, brought in nearly $600,000 in profit for Romney that year, and invests in Watson Pharmaceuticals, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Mylan, and Pfizer—all of which manufacture birth control. Watson Pharmaceuticals in particular manufactures nine forms of emergency contraception, a particular target of Romney's.

In other words, Romney is attacking President Obama for expanding women's access to birth control, but he has no problem enriching himself off the companies that manufacture it.

Does Romney know no bounds in his willingness to do and say—and hide—whatever it takes to get elected?

Last night was rough for Mitt Romney.

In addition to losing Missouri's "beauty contest," he came in third in Minnesota and lost Colorado, a state he expected to win handily—after all, he carried the state with 60 percent of the vote in 2008.

That comes on top of new polling that confirms Democrats are more excited about the November elections than Republicans. That can't be good for the Republican Party's prospects—or Romneyland's in particular.

But the past months have proved that it shouldn't be surprising that enthusiasm is cratering for the GOP and for Romney. Primary voters have been confronted with a field of deeply flawed candidates who offer nothing new and who want to double down on the failed economic policies that tanked our economy in 2008.

And GOP primary voters and general-election independents are now turning away from their party's frontrunner, Romney, a candidate who will say anything to get elected—so much so that he cannot be trusted to lead. His private-sector experience has rapidly gone from a plus to a liability: Laying off people and bankrupting companies to line your own pockets is not what Americans think when they think of free enterprise.

Boston, you have a problem.

But don't take it from us. Here's a sample of what they're saying.

Jon Ward wrote in the Huffington Post today:

"It was a very bad night for Mitt Romney Tuesday, no matter which way you sliced it, another harsh blow undermining his argument that he is the strongest Republican candidate for president.

"It happened in Iowa on Jan. 3. It happened Jan. 22 in South Carolina. And on Tuesday night, Romney was again rejected by a large portion of the Republican electorate, this time in Missouri, Minnesota and Colorado. …

"No amount of spinning by the Romney campaign about delegate counts could obscure what the night made crystal clear: their candidate remains unable to excite passion in the GOP and remains a long way from closing the deal with voters."

Taegan Goddard at Political Wire wrote:

"An emerging theme is that Mitt Romney can't win any state unless he's able to hammer his opponents with negative ads."

And Talking Points Memo's Benjy Sarlin tweeted:

@BenjySarlin: So while Missouri doesn't count, not a good sign that 100,000+ Republicans came out just to say they don't want Romney

Mitt Romney's latest line of attack against President Obama is that the administration is "using Obamacare to impose a secular vision on Americans who believe that they should not have their religious freedom taken away." He's launched a petition against the administration's new regulation requiring employers and insurers to offer coverage for women's contraception.

Romney's attack has been called an "outright lie"—and it certainly doesn't square with his own record as Massachusetts governor, when he stood behind a state law that required all FDA-approved contraception, including emergency contraception, must be covered.

In other words, Romney is attacking President Obama for providing women with the very same access to contraception and preventive care that Romney did as governor of Massachusetts. It's another breathtaking example of Romney's hypocrisy—and his willingness to do and say whatever he thinks it takes to get elected.

This infographic shows that the Massachusetts law and the federal law are nearly identical. Share it widely.

Over at barackobama.com, Obama for America campaign manager Jim Messina has written this post on the campaign's decision to support Priorities USA to counter the outsize influence of Republican super PACs:

In 2010, the Supreme Court's decision in the Citizens United case opened the door to a new wave of so-called Super PACs—non-candidate political committees that can receive and spend unlimited money from special interests. For the first time, these committees could accept money from corporations, not just wealthy individuals.

The decision has accelerated a dangerous trend toward a political system increasingly dominated by big-money interests with disproportionate power to spend freely to influence our elections and our government.

It's a trend the President has fought against, coming into office with a mission to limit special-interest influence in Washington. He put in place the most sweeping ethics reforms in history to close the revolving door between government and lobbyists. And he's overseen the most open administration ever—reversing Bush-era policies designed to limit Freedom of Information Act requests and disclosing White House visitor records so that Americans can see how their government works.

The President opposed the Citizens United decision. He understood that with the dramatic growth in opportunities to raise and spend unlimited special-interest money, we would see new strategies to hide it from public view. He continues to support a law to force full disclosure of all funding intended to influence our elections, a reform that was blocked in 2010 by a unanimous Republican filibuster in the U.S. Senate. And the President favors action—by constitutional amendment, if necessary—to place reasonable limits on all such spending.

But this cycle, our campaign has to face the reality of the law as it currently stands.

Over the last few months, Super PACs affiliated with Republican presidential candidates have spent more than $40 million on television and radio, almost all of it for negative ads.

Last week, filings showed that the Super PAC affiliated with Mitt Romney's campaign raised $30 million in 2011 from fewer than 200 contributors, most of them from the financial sector. Governor Romney personally helped raise money for this group, which is run by some of his closest allies.

Meanwhile, other Super PACs established for the sole purpose of defeating the President—along with "nonprofits" that also aren't required to disclose the sources of their funding—have raised more than $50 million. In the aggregate, these groups are expected to spend half a billion dollars, above and beyond what the Republican nominee and party are expected to commit to try to defeat the President.

With so much at stake, we can't allow for two sets of rules in this election whereby the Republican nominee is the beneficiary of unlimited spending and Democrats unilaterally disarm.

Therefore, the campaign has decided to do what we can, consistent with the law, to support Priorities USA in its effort to counter the weight of the GOP Super PAC. We will do so only in the knowledge and with the expectation that all of its donations will be fully disclosed as required by law to the Federal Election Commission.

What this change means practically: Senior campaign officials as well as some White House and Cabinet officials will attend and speak at Priorities USA fundraising events. While campaign officials may be appearing at events to amplify our message, these folks won't be soliciting contributions for Priorities USA. I should also note that the President, Vice President, and First Lady will not be a part of this effort; their political activity will remain focused on the President's campaign.

But here's what this doesn't change: the fact that ordinary people stepping up to take control of the political process is essential to our strategy.

This decision will help fill a hole on our side. But it's only one part of the overall effort.

Supporting Priorities USA means that our side will not concede the battles on the air in the months to come, but we continue to believe that this election will be won on the ground. Super PACs haven't opened offices. They haven't hired organizers. They haven't registered voters. They haven't knocked on doors or made the kind of personal contact with voters that we know is the single most effective way to persuade people and turn them out on Election Day.

And this is where we have the advantage. It will be up to us—the grassroots organization, funded by an average donation of $55—to win this election.

It's a point of pride that 98 percent of all our donations are $250 or less. Mitt Romney won't reveal that number about his own campaign, but filings show that just 9 percent of the Romney campaign's money in the fourth quarter of last year came from people giving less than $200.

Americans across the country are supporting the most extensive neighbor-to-neighbor, grassroots organization in history.

It's my hope that by making this decision and doing what we can to neutralize the onslaught of special-interest money, we can ensure that the decisive factor in this election won't be an unprecedented flood of special-interest spending, and the outcome will be back in the hands of ordinary Americans.

You might have been hearing a lot of false claims from the Republicans about the newest guidelines surrounding contraception under the Affordable Care Act. Here's the bottom line: Women will now have access to contraception with no co-pays or deductibles under most insurance plans—saving many women up to $600 a year.

For more, check out this infographic from barackobama.com—and share it with women you know.