#federal political action committee

[sequoyastrategies]

The Role of Legal Consulting in Your Business

Sequoia Strategies LLC provides expert legal consulting services to empower your business. Our team, led by a licensed attorney with over 20 years of experience, offers comprehensive guidance on navigating complex regulations, contracts, and legalities.pen_spark

#public affairs consulting #public policy consulting #government consulting firm #american political action committee #communications consulting firm #government strategy consulting #federal political action committee #local government consulting #legal consulting services #public policy and government

[blanket-burrito-protocol]

The 50th anniversary of AIMs (American Indian Movement's) occupation at Wounded Knee is coming up, so the Lakota People's Law Project is leading another push to free an AIM activist who was wrongly convicted of killing two federal agents in 1975- Leonard Peltier. He was convicted on false evidence and false testimony and sentenced to two life sentences. He is now 78.

LPL has a formatted email up on their website now which you can personalize and send to Biden to ask for clemency. (Please personalize emails like this so it doesn't get filtered as spam. Just move some words around, add some, take some, you don't have to write a whole email.) Please pass this around.

#leonard peltier #aim #american indian movement #leonard peltier defense committee #wounded knee #protest #occupation #political prisoners #petition #president biden #clemency #action #lakota #ojibwe #advocacy #native rights #indigenous people #legal action #federal prison #indian boarding schools #boarding school #history #bishop desmond tutu #nelson mandela #dalai lama #chase iron eyes #legal defense #activists

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

As of December 2023, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) has received 59 allegations that Donald Trump or his committees violated the Federal Election Campaign Act. In 29 of those cases, nonpartisan staff in the FEC’s Office of General Counsel (OGC) recommended the FEC investigate Trump. Yet not once has a Republican FEC commissioner voted to approve any such investigation or enforcement of the law against Trump.

Democratic Vice Chair Ellen Weintraub pointed this out in her December 5, 2023 statement of reasons after the FEC once again failed to garner the votes to enforce the law against Trump after he allegedly violated the law by illegally soliciting or directing money to a pro-Trump super PAC that spent millions on ads opposing Joe Biden in 2020.

Because at least four of the six FEC Commissioners need to approve any FEC investigation, and because only three of those seats can be filled by Democrats, Republicans hold a veto over the agency’s enforcement and have repeatedly used it to shoot down any recommended enforcement of campaign finance law against Trump—and thus successfully shielded him from accountability over and over. Instead of fostering bipartisanship, the split FEC has often become gridlocked and, in cases involving Trump, its ability to pursue action is constrained by the members of one party.

The FEC’s enabling statute, the Federal Election Campaign Act, specifically subjects the Commission’s non-enforcement to review to prevent it from blocking meritorious enforcement. In June 2018, however, two Republican-appointed judges of the D.C. Circuit—including now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh—largely gutted that rule, giving commissioners the authority to block enforcement of the law without judicial review if the commissioners claimed that they did so as an exercise of prosecutorial discretion or under Heckler v. Chaney.

So, in 21 of the 29 cases where the FEC received recommendations to enforce the law against Trump, Republican commissioners justified non-enforcement by invoking prudential or discretionary factors in attempts to circumvent review.

When dismissing the recommendations to investigate Trump—and to kill further inquiries into his actions—the Republican commissioners have at times claimed that the FEC should not take any action because “proceeding further would not be an appropriate use of Commission resources” or that the resources would be “best spent elsewhere.” Trump has even falsely declared that the FEC “dropped” one of its investigations into him “because they found no evidence of problems.” As Commissioner Weintraub wrote in a statement of reasons in November 2023, “the data is clear: At the FEC, Mr. Trump is in a category by himself.”

Unless courts restore their check on partisan vetoes on enforcement, the commissioners will continue to fail to enforce federal campaign finance law against the powerful figures they are trying to protect.

#us politics #news #citizens for responsibility and ethics in Washington #2024 #Federal Election Commission #Federal Election Campaign Act #donald trump #conservatives #republicans #gop #Office of General Counsel #campaign finance violations #campaign finance laws #Ellen Weintraub #super pacs #political action committee #Justice Brett Kavanaugh #Heckler v. Chaney

[kp777]

By Jake Johnson

Common Dreams

Jan. 6, 2024

"Billionaires attempting to influence politics from the shadows should not be rewarded with taxpayer subsidies," said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse.

Legislation introduced Tuesday by a pair of Democratic lawmakers would close a loophole that lets billionaires donate assets to dark money organizations without paying any taxes.

The U.S. tax code allows write-offs when appreciated assets such as shares of stock are donated to a charity, but the tax break doesn't apply when the assets are given to political groups.

However, donations to 501(c)(4) organizations—which are allowed to engage in some political activity as long as it's not their primary purpose—are exempt from capital gains taxes, a loophole that Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Rep. Judy Chu (D-Calif.) are looking to shutter with their End Tax Breaks for Dark Money Act.

Whitehouse, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee who has focused extensively on the corrupting effects of dark money, said the need for the bill was made clear by what ProPublica and The Lever described as "the largest known donation to a political advocacy group in U.S. history."

The investigative outlets reported in 2022 that billionaire manufacturing magnate Barre Seid donated his 100% ownership stake in Tripp Lite, a maker of electrical equipment, to Marble Freedom Trust, a group controlled by Federalist Society co-chairman Leonard Leo.

The donation, completed in 2021, was worth $1.6 billion. According to ProPublica and The Lever, the structure of the gift allowed Seid to avoid up to $400 million in taxes.

"It's a clear sign of a broken tax code when a single donor can transfer assets worth $1.6 billion to a dark money political group without paying a penny in taxes," Whitehouse said in a statement Tuesday. "Billionaires attempting to influence politics from the shadows should not be rewarded with taxpayer subsidies."

"We cannot allow millionaires and billionaires to run roughshod over our democracy and then reward them for it with a tax break."

If passed, the End Tax Breaks for Dark Money Act would ensure that donations of appreciated assets to 501(c)(4) organizations are subjected to the same rules as gifts to political action committees (PACs) and parties.

"Thanks to the far-right Supreme Court, billionaires already have outsized influence to decide our nation's politics; through a loophole in the tax code, they can even secure massive public subsidies for lobbying and campaigning when they secretly donate their wealth to certain nonprofits instead of traditional political organizations," said Chu. "We can decrease the impact the wealthy have on our politics by applying capital gains taxes to donations of appreciated property to nonprofits that engage in lobbying and political activity—the same way they are already treated when made to traditional political organizations like PACs."

The new bill comes amid an election season that is already flooded with outside spending.

The watchdog OpenSecrets reported last month that super PACs and other groups "have already poured nearly $318 million into spending on presidential and congressional races as of January 14—more than six times as much as had been spent at this point in 2020."

Thanks to the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United ruling, super PACs can raise and spend unlimited sums on federal elections—often without being fully transparent about their donors.

Morris Pearl, chairman of the Patriotic Millionaires, said Tuesday that "there is no justifiable reason why wealthy people like me should be allowed to dominate our political system by donating an entire $1.6 billion company to a dark money political group."

"But perhaps more egregious is the $400 million tax break that comes from doing so," said Pearl. "It's a perfect example of how this provision in the tax code is used by the ultrawealthy to manipulate the levers of government while simultaneously dodging their obligation to pay taxes. We cannot allow millionaires and billionaires to run roughshod over our democracy and then reward them for it with a tax break."

#dark money #super pac #citizens united #corruption #taxation #judy chu #sheldon whitehouse

[gallifreyriver]

Update to this post because a year later they're still trying it.

They vote again tomorrow, March 13th, to try and ban TikTok- only this time they're doing all they can to claim it's not a TikTik ban.

They claim it's to "protect Americans from 'Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications'" despite singling out ByteDance/TikTok specifically, and mentioning TikTok in literally the first sentence.

They also claim it's not a "ban," they're just giving TikTok the "opportunity" to divest from ByteDance and sell it's company, algorithms and source code to a non-communist county (the US) within 180 days or the US will take action and make the app inaccessible to USA Americans, which make up 150 million of TikTok's user base, the largest TikTok audience by country so far.

One could call this a shakedown, that effectively the US is trying to steal a popular and profitable company. "That's a nice company you got there, be a shame if you... I don't know... lost 150 million users- Wouldn't it?"

[Edit: Forgot to add that even though the US has 150 million TikTok users, that's still only like 8%-ish of TikTiks total userbase- making this "shakedown" an example of how Congress is embarrassingly USA-centric. TikTok will not sell just to avoid losing just 7%-8% of it's userbase, and Congress must know that- if not, that just proves the point even more. This bill is for all intents and purposes a BAN, regardless how they try to spin it, and they're being very USA-centric and Xenophobic about it]

Anyway-

This is the second vote. A House committee voted unanimously on Mar. 7th to advance the bill, and it will be voted on again by a Republican controlled House.

Please call or email your representatives and tell them to vote "No" on bill H.R. 7521.

This isn't about just losing an app. TikTok is unique in that it is currently the easiest place to organize and spread information that otherwise doesn't get as much coverage. It allows for real time coverage and updates by those living through major events going on around the word, and has allowed for increased awareness for such events that we likely wouldn't hear about otherwise. (i.e: the genocide in Palestine, Cop City, any of the bills trying to take trans rights/abortion rights away, etc)

If you don't know your representatives, just google "who are my representatives" and the first results should be links that will help you find them based on your zip code

And if you don't know what to write I can help you there too.

You can write something as simple as just:

Vote "No" on bill H.R. 7521.

Seriously, that's all you need.

Or, if you want something a little more in depth, here's a script that you can either copy and paste or reword to your liking. I just re-worded the script from the ACLU link above to fit more specifically about the current bill (Though let's be honest, for all intents and purposes Congress is pulling the same shit in a different hat)

Dear Representative, I’m writing today to strongly urge you to protect our constitutional rights to free expression and to receive information, and to vote no on any bill that would give the federal government the power to ban entire social media platforms. Bill H.R. 7521 is designed to allow the government to ban TikTok in the US and would likely result in bans of other businesses and applications as well. Given what we know about TikTok, it’s clear that a ban would violate the First Amendment rights of millions of Americans who use the app to communicate and express themselves daily. Should these bills move to a vote, I urge you to vote “No.” In a purported attempt to protect the data of US persons from the Chinese government, these bills will instead block Americans from engaging in political discussions, artistic expression, and the free exchange of ideas. We have a First Amendment right to use TikTok and other platforms to exchange our thoughts, ideas, and opinions with people around the country and around the world. Please oppose any bill designed to limit our right to express ourselves — both online and off. Thank you.

Reminder, they vote tomorrow, Wednesday March 13th.

So please reblog this to spread the word and contact your representatives to tell them to vote "No" on this bill.

Do not be mistaken in thinking your opinion doesn't matter- it does matter so much. Do not let yourself be silenced!

#stop tiktok ban #tiktok #tiktok ban #internet censorship #important #urgent #sos #bad internet bills #internet freedom #congress #house of representatives #help

[batboyblog]

The Biden administration on Wednesday issued one of the most significant climate regulations in the nation’s history, a rule designed to ensure that the majority of new passenger cars and light trucks sold in the United States are all-electric or hybrids by 2032.

Cars and other forms of transportation are, together, the largest single source of carbon emissions generated by the United States, pollution that is driving climate change and that helped to make 2023 the hottest year in recorded history. Electric vehicles are central to President Biden’s strategy to confront global warming, which calls for cutting the nation’s emissions in half by the end of this decade. But E.V.s have also become politicized and are becoming an issue in the 2024 presidential campaign.

“Three years ago, I set an ambitious target: that half of all new cars and trucks sold in 2030 would be zero-emission,” said Mr. Biden in a statement. “Together, we’ve made historic progress. Hundreds of new expanded factories across the country. Hundreds of billions in private investment and thousands of good-paying union jobs. And we’ll meet my goal for 2030 and race forward in the years ahead.”

The rule increasingly limits the amount of pollution allowed from tailpipes over time so that, by 2032, more than half the new cars sold in the United States would most likely be zero-emissions vehicles in order for carmakers to meet the standards.

That would avoid more than seven billion tons of carbon dioxide emissions over the next 30 years, according to the E.P.A. That’s the equivalent of removing a year’s worth of all the greenhouse gases generated by the United States, the country that has historically pumped the most carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The regulation would provide nearly $100 billion in annual net benefits to society, according to the agency, including $13 billion of annual public health benefits thanks to improved air quality.

The standards would also save the average American driver about $6,000 in reduced fuel and maintenance over the life of a vehicle, the E.P.A. estimated.

The auto emissions rule is the most impactful of four major climate regulations from the Biden administration, including restrictions on emissions from power plants, trucks and methane leaks from oil and gas wells. The rules come on top of the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, the biggest climate law in the nation’s history, which is providing at least $370 billion in federal incentives to support clean energy, including tax credits to buyers of electric vehicles.

The policies are intended to help the country meet Mr. Biden’s target of cutting U.S. greenhouse emissions in half by 2030 and eliminating them by 2050. Climate scientists say all major economies must do the same if the world is to avert the most deadly and costly effects of climate change.

“These standards form what we see as a historic climate grand slam for the Biden administration,” said Manish Bapna, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council Action Fund, a political action committee that aims to advance environmental causes.

Mr. Bapna’s group has calculated that the four regulations, combined with the Inflation Reduction Act, would reduce the nation’s greenhouse emissions 42 percent by 2030, getting the country most of the way to Mr. Biden’s 2030 target.

Get in Losers we're going to save the planet.

#Joe Biden #Thanks Biden #climate change #climate crisis #electric vehicles #carbon emissions #politics #US politics

[mariacallous]

Dianne Feinstein, California’s longest-serving U.S. senator who led San Francisco through its darkest and most violent days as mayor in the 1970s and later authored a federal ban on assault weapons that lasted a decade, died Thursday night, according to multiple reports.

At 90, she was the oldest member of Congress and the longest-serving female in the chamber’s history.

...

At the start of her career, Feinstein was a trailblazer for women and gay rights, and after the 1978 assassinations of San Francisco Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk, she emerged as a reassuring leader and formidable force who pulled together the city that was still reeling from the Jonestown Massacre in Guyana 10 days earlier, where 900 people connected to the San Francisco-based People’s Temple died.

In what would become known as “The Year of the Woman” in 1992, she shared a historic moment with Barbara Boxer when they were both elected to the U.S. Senate and California became the first state with two women senators. Feinstein won in a special election and was sworn in first.

“She had tenacity. She never gave up,” especially in passing the Assault Weapons Ban in 1994, Boxer said in an interview with the Bay Area News Group. “I will always remember how proud I was when she stood her ground on the floor of the Senate, when some of the men said, ‘Well, you don’t even understand what an AR-15 is,’ and she said, ‘I understand what gun violence is. I had to put my finger through a hole in the wrist (of Harvey Milk).’ It was very emotional.”

Feinstein also pioneered a number of other firsts: first woman mayor of San Francisco, first woman to chair the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and the first woman to chair the Senate Judiciary Committee, a watershed moment after public outrage over the handling of Anita Hill’s testimony during the male-dominated Supreme Court nomination hearings of Clarence Thomas in 1991.

In 1994, the same year she passed the weapons ban, Feinstein wrote the California Desert Protection Act that established Death Valley and Joshua Tree as national parks. After the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, as chairwoman of the Intelligence Committee, she publicly released the “Torture Report” that exposed the CIA’s interrogation program that failed to work on terrorist suspects and, along with the late Sen. John McCain, authored legislation outlawing the CIA’s use of torture.

For those old enough to remember the shocking assassinations at San Francisco City Hall in 1978, however, it was her brief videotaped news conference and its aftermath that launched her national political career. Standing outside the supervisors offices, news cameras illuminating her face, she delivered the shocking news: “As president of the board of supervisors, it’s my duty to make this announcement. Both Mayor Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk have been shot and killed,” she said as the media erupted in gasps and shouts. “The suspect is Supervisor Dan White.”

She would later detail her actions that morning, that when she heard the shots, she raced into Milk’s office. “I tried to get a pulse,” she said, “and put my finger through a bullet hole.”

Duffy Jennings, a former San Francisco Chronicle reporter who was in the crowd when Feinstein made the announcement, said her leadership through a tumultuous era would come to define Feinstein.

“She was incredibly resilient, strong and decisive,” Jennings said in an interview with the Bay Area News Group. “It wasn’t just Jonestown and Dan White. The ‘70s had the Zodiac killer, Patty Hearst, the SLA, the New World Liberation Front, counterculture extremism. It was a horrific decade in San Francisco and the Bay Area. And politically, she was as strong as anybody in holding the town together.”

At one point, New World Liberation Front – an anti-capitalist terrorist group – planted a bomb on the windowsill of her daughter’s bedroom. It failed to explode.

Born in San Francisco in 1933, Feinstein was the daughter of a prominent surgeon. Feinstein was Jewish but attended the prestigious Convent of the Sacred Heart Catholic girls school, where she acted in plays and – because of her 5-foot-10-inch height – often played male roles. She attended Stanford University in the early 1950s, where she was elected vice president of the student body.

When Feinstein entered San Francisco politics in the late 1960s, “nobody took her seriously,” said Jerry Roberts, the Chronicle’s former executive editor who wrote an early biography called “Never Let Them See You Cry,” named for one of Feinstein’s tips for businesswomen.

Early media reports of her campaigns, he said, were “unbelievably sexist,” and often characterized her as a “raven-haired beauty” with a “slender figure.” Her husband at the time, Dr. Bertram Feinstein, was widely mocked as a “first husband.”

“Just in terms of the cultural obstacles that she had to overcome to be taken seriously and to win is something people don’t think a lot about now,” Roberts said. “She was never a movement feminist, but she was a feminist.”

She kept a firefighter’s turnout jacket and helmet in her trunk to race to fires, and once gave mouth-to-mouth resuscitation to a man she saw collapse in the Tenderloin. She listened to a police scanner in her office.

Although she opposed domestic partnership legislation for the city in 1982, when the AIDS epidemic broke out, Feinstein “got right on it. I mean, instantly,” said Louise Renne, whom Feinstein appointed as San Francisco’s first woman City Attorney. “The folks at San Francisco General were pulled in to deal with the AIDS epidemic, and San Francisco took a leadership role in solving that problem.”

Feinstein was considered moderate politically, supporting environmental causes but also encouraging commercial high rise development in downtown San Francisco. She is credited with completing the Moscone Convention Center project, renovating the city’s cable car system and retrofitting Candlestick Park before the Loma Prieta earthquake struck during the third game of the 1989 World Series.

Feinstein ran for governor of California in 1990 and lost to Republican Pete Wilson, whom she would replace in the Senate. In 1996, she was one of only 14 senators who voted against the Defense of Marriage Act that prevented the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages.

Feinstein’s leadership opened doors for two San Francisco women who would become the most powerful female politicians in the country – Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House and Kamala Harris as vice president.

...

Looking back, Boxer recalls when she and Feinstein were first elected to the Senate, her colleague sat her down and told her, “You’ve got to stick with this. The longer you stay, the better you’ll feel, the more you’ll get done.”

Feinstein stuck with it on Capitol Hill for three decades, perhaps summing up why in her final acceptance speech before her re-election in 2018, years before the political implications of her frail health in her final years threatened her legacy.

In the speech, she called serving in the Senate “the greatest honor in my life.”

[posttexasstressdisorder]

Former FBI official accuses Marjorie Taylor Greene of spreading foreign propaganda

Mark Alesia, Investigative Reporter

April 13, 2024 6:08AM ET

Marjorie Taylor Greene talking to reporters in February. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

This article was paid for by Raw Story subscribers. Not a subscriber? Try us and go ad-free for $1. Prefer to give a one-time tip? Click here.

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) is spreading the propaganda of American adversaries on social media, knowing those countries will amplify her messages for impact they wouldn’t otherwise have, said the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s former assistant director for counterintelligence.

In Monday’s debut of The Defiant Podcast with Brooklyn Dad Defiant, shared in advance with Raw Story, Frank Figliuzzi tells host Majid Padellan, “What we’ve caught Russia and China doing … is they’ll take a statement from Marjorie Taylor Green — or someone like her, someone who doesn’t deserve a particular amount of attention — and then those foreign intelligence services amplify it across social media.

“So she has immediate amplifying support out there. She knows when she spouts something ridiculous there’s going to be foreign adversaries who blow up her message so we can’t avoid it.”

Greene’s office did not respond to a request for comment from Raw Story.

READ: A criminologist explains why Trump’s Manhattan trial is the biggest threat to his freedom

In the podcast, Figliuzzi, who works for NBC News, emphasized China’s role in spreading misinformation and disinformation.

“We focus almost exclusively on Russia at our own peril,” Figliuzzi said. “Because recent reporting, including from my outfit, NBC News, has pointed out that the Chinese are already at it — already fully engaged in attempting to mess with our next election. It’s chaos they want to sew.”

Padellan said Figliuzzi described the situation by using a phrase he coined: “spamoflage,” a cross between spam and camouflage.

“He said they’ll create a clone of, say, CNN’s website and post information that’s kind of true but kind of not true,” Padellan said. “He said by the time people figure out it’s a bogus site, it’s already done its damage.”

Figliuzzi told Padellan that China wants Trump to win.

“Because he is more easy to manipulate, he’s more susceptible to influence,” Padellan said.

Padellan is a staunch progressive and social media influencer who has 1.3 million followers on X, formerly Twitter. In 2021, the New York Post attacked him for taking money from a pro-Democrat political action committee, Really American, in 2020. FEC records show the total was $59,088.

Padellan responded that he was always open about the affiliation. He did design and social media work for the organization. FEC records show no payments since then to Padellan.

He said his motivation is his five children, three adults and two teenagers.

“I feel a very strong sense of responsibility about the kind of world I’m passing on to them,” Padellan said. “This is personal. I have skin in the game. I feel like it’s my civic duty to do everything possible to illuminate the truth, to make sure I do what I can to cut through the (bs).”

[sequoyastrategies]

Government Consulting Firm by Sequoya Strategies LLC

Elevate your government operations with Sequoya Strategies LLC. As a trusted government consulting firm, we specialize in providing innovative solutions for governmental challenges. From policy analysis to program evaluation, rely on our expertise to drive meaningful change.

#government consulting firm #government strategy consulting #public policy consulting #local government consulting #legal consulting services #public affairs consulting #federal political action committee #public policy and government #american political action committee #communications consulting firm

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

[Daily Don]

* * * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

AUG 30, 2023

Four days ago, on Saturday, August 26, in the early afternoon, a heavily armed, 21-year-old white supremacist in a tactical vest and mask, who had written a number of racist manifestos and had swastikas painted on his rifle, murdered three Black Americans at a Dollar General store in Jacksonville, Florida. He had apparently intended to attack Edward Waters University, a historically Black institution, but students who saw him put on tactical gear warned a security guard, who chased him off and alerted a sheriff’s deputy. 

As David Kurtz of Talking Points Memo put it two days later, “America is living through a reign of white supremacist terror,” and in a speech to the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under the Law on Monday, President Joe Biden reminded listeners that “the U.S. intelligence community has determined that domestic terrorism, rooted in white supremacy, is the greatest terrorist threat we face in the homeland—the greatest threat.” 

Biden said he has made it a point to make “clear that America is the most multiracial, most dynamic nation in the history of the world.” He noted that he had nominated the first Black woman, Ketanji Brown Jackson, for the Supreme Court and has put more Black women on the federal circuit courts than every other U.S. president combined. Under him, Congress has protected interracial and same-sex marriages, and his administration has more women than men. He warned that “hate never dies. It just hides.”   

But in his Editorial Board newsletter, John Stoehr pointed out that the increasing violence of white supremacists isn’t just about an “ideology of hate” rising, but it is “about a minority faction of the country going to war, literal war, with a majority faction.” He pointed to former governor of Alaska Sarah Palin’s recent prediction of civil war because “We’re not going to keep putting up with this…. We do need to rise up and take our country back.” Stoehr calls these white supremacists “Realamericans” who believe they should rule and, if they can’t do so lawfully, believe they are justified in taking the law into their own hands. 

Indeed, today’s white supremacist violence has everything to do with the 1965 Voting Rights Act that protected the right to vote guaranteed by the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1870 after white supremacists refused to recognize the right of Black Americans to vote and hold office. Minority voting means a government—and a country—that white men don’t dominate.

In the 1870s, once the federal government began to prosecute those white men attacking their Black neighbors for exercising their right to vote, white supremacists immediately began to say that they had no issues with Black voting on grounds of race. Their issue, they said, was that Black men were poor, and they were voting for lawmakers—some Black but primarily white—who supported the construction of roads, schools, hospitals, and so on. While these investments were crucial in the devastated South and would help white Americans as well as Black ones, white supremacists insisted that such government action redistributed wealth from white people to Black people and thus was a form of socialism. 

It was a short step from this argument to insisting that Black men shouldn’t vote because they were “corrupting” the American system. By 1876, former Confederates had regained control of southern state legislatures, where they rewrote voting laws to exclude Black men and people of color on grounds other than that of race, which the Fifteenth Amendment had made unconstitutional. 

By the end of the nineteenth century, white southerners greeted any attempt to protect Black voting as an attempt to destroy true America. Finally, in North Carolina in 1898, Democrats recognized they were losing ground to a biracial fusion ticket of Republicans and Populists who promised economic and political reforms. Before that year’s election, white Democratic leaders ran a viciously racist campaign to fire up their white base. “It is time for the oft quoted shotgun to play a part, and an active one,” one woman wrote, ”in the elections.”

Blocking Fusion voters from the polls and threatening them with guns gave the Democrats a victory, but in Wilmington the biracial city government had not been up for reelection and so remained in power. Vigilantes said they would never again be ruled by Black men and their unscrupulous white allies who intended to “dominate the intelligent and thrifty element in the community.” They destroyed Black businesses and property and killed as many as 300 Black Americans, then portrayed themselves as reluctant victims who had been obliged to remove inefficient and stupid officials before they reduced the city to further chaos. 

In 2005, white supremacists in North Carolina echoed this version of the Wilmington coup, claiming it was a natural reaction to “oppressive radical social policies” and a “carnival of corruption and criminality” by their opponents, who used the votes of ignorant Black men to stay in power.  

That echo is no accident. The 1965 Voting Rights Act ended the power of white supremacists in the Democratic Party once and for all, and they switched to the Republicans. Then-Democratic South Carolina senator Strom Thurmond had launched the longest filibuster in U.S. history to try to stop the 1957 Civil Rights Act; Republican candidate Richard Nixon deliberately courted him and those who thought like him in 1968.

Republicans adopted the same pattern Democrats had used in the late nineteenth century, claiming their concerns were about taxes and government corruption, pushing voter suppression legislation by insisting they cared about “voter fraud,” insisting their opponents were un-American socialists attempting to overthrow a fairly-elected government. 

This political side of white supremacy is all around us. As Democracy Docket put it last month, “Republicans have a math problem, and they know it. Regardless of their candidate, it is nearly certain that more people will vote to reelect Joe Biden than his [Republican] opponent.” After all, Democrats have won the popular vote since 2008. Under these circumstances and unwilling to moderate their platform, “Republicans need to make it harder to vote and easier to cheat.” 

Republican-dominated state legislatures are working to make it as hard as possible for minorities and younger Americans to vote, while also pushing the election denier movement to undermine the counting and certification of election results. At the same time, eight Republican-dominated states have left the nonpartisan Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC), a compact between the states that makes it easier to share voter information to avoid duplicate registration and voting, and three more are considering leaving. 

In a special session of the Tennessee legislature this week, Republican lawmakers blocked the public from holding signs (a judge blocked the rule), kicked the public out of a hearing, and passed new rules that could prohibit Democrats from speaking. House speaker Cameron Sexton silenced young Black Democratic representative Justin Jones for a day and today suggested the Republicans might make the rule silencing minority members permanent.

In Wisconsin, where one of the nation’s most extreme gerrymanders gives Republicans dominance in the legislature, Republicans in 2018 stripped Democratic governor-elect Tony Evers of power before they left office, and now right-wing Chief Justice Annette Ziegler has told the liberal majority on the state supreme court that it is staging a “coup” by exercising their new power after voters elected Justice Janet Protasiewicz to the court by a large majority in April. Now the legislature is talking about keeping the majority from getting rid of the gerrymandered maps by impeaching Protasiewicz.  

The courts are trying to hold the line against this movement. In Washington, D.C., today, U.S. District Court Judge Beryl Howell decided in favor of Black election workers Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss, who claimed that Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani defamed them when he claimed they had committed voter fraud. Not only did Howell award the two women court costs and damages, she called out Giuliani and his associates for trying to keep their records hidden. 

But as the courts are trying to hold the line, its supporters are targeting the courts themselves, with MAGA Republicans threatening to defund state and federal prosecutors they claim are targeting Republicans, and announcing their intention to gather the power of the Department of Justice into their own hands should they win office in 2024. 

After pushing a social studies curriculum that erases Black agency and resistance to white supremacy, Florida governor Ron DeSantis on Monday suggested the Jacksonville shooting was an isolated incident. 

The Black audience booed. 

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

#Letters From An American #Heather Cox Richardson #history #racism #voting #US History #white supremisist terrorism #white supremism

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

Former President Donald Trump is diverting more donations from political supporters to fund his mounting legal costs as multiple court cases put an increased strain on his resources.

Disclosure text on the Trump presidential campaign’s WinRed digital fundraising platform now specifies that 10% of political contributions will go to his legal battles via the Save America PAC. The other 90% will be used for political campaigning to try to return him to the White House for a second term. The former president previously took 1% for his legal troubles from political donations.

Mr. Trump’s legal issues include his 37-count criminal indictment including violations of the Espionage Act and a sexual abuse civil lawsuit which was recently won by the writer, E. Jean Carroll.

The change, first reported by The New York Times, appears to have been made in February or March of 2023, according to archival footage reviewed by the newspaper.

The cost of Mr. Trump’s court battles can be seen in Save America PAC’s legal expenditures, which according to the Federal Election Commission (FEC), have ballooned from $1.9million to $14.6m in 2022.

A Trump campaign spokesman declined to comment to the Times on the former president’s legal bills or whether his supporters understood where their donations were going.

The spokesman said that the Save America PAC owns a sizable email list from Trump election campaigns in 2016 and 2020, valuable data that the Trump 2024 bid is essentially leasing from the PAC.

“Because the campaign wants to ensure every dollar donated to President Trump is spent in the most cost-effective manner, a fair-market analysis was conducted to determine email list rentals would be more efficient by amending the fund-raising split between the two entities,” Trump representative Steven Cheung told The Independent.

“This saves money in the long term and is a clear contrast to what Always Back Down has done, which is frivolously waste money in an unethical manner,” he added, a reference to the Never Back Down PAC run by Mr Trump’s primary opponent, Ron DeSantis.

Several members of Mr. Trump’s legal team have departed in recent days following his second criminal indictment with little explanation.

Even with an increasing amount of donations being siphoned off for mounting legal expenses, Mr. Trump is not expected to face a money crunch any time soon.

Mr. Trump remains the frontrunner for the 2024 GOP nomination, and last week, his campaign boasted that it had raised $7M from supporters since news broke of his indictment for allegedly mishandling government secrets.

With the campaign’s new fundraising split, that would mean around $700,000 that could be put towards his legal defence if donations were made through WinRed.

#us politics #news #the independent #donald trump #conservatives #republicans #winred #Save America PAC #political action committees #2023 #The New York Times #federal election commission #2024 elections #2024 presidential race #2024 republican primaries #classified documents #classified documents probe #indictment #legal fees

[kp777]

Julia Conley

Common Dreams

May 17, 2024

"This behavior is disqualifying for a Supreme Court justice," said one critic.

U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Dick Durbin was among those on Friday who called for Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito's recusal from cases related to the 2020 election after The New York Timesreported the justice flew an upside-down flag outside his home in the days leading up to President Joe Biden's inauguration.

The display of an inverted flag officially symbolizes "dire duress" according to the U.S. code, and has been used at various times by people across the political spectrum to signify distress over U.S. policy and disapproval of the government.

At the time Alito's family displayed the flag, just over a week after then-President Donald Trump urged his supporters to riot at the U.S. Capitol when lawmakers were certifying the election results, the "Stop the Steal" movement had embraced the symbol to show their belief that the election had been stolen for Biden—despite all evidence to the contrary.

Alito told the Times on Friday that he "had no involvement whatsoever in the flying of the flag" and that "it was briefly placed by Mrs. Alito in response to a neighbor's use of objectionable and personally insulting language on yard signs."

But Durbin (D-Ill.) said the display on January 17, 2021—and for several days before that—clearly created "the appearance of bias."

"Justice Alito should recuse himself immediately from cases related to the 2020 election and the January 6 insurrection, including the question of the former president's immunity in U.S. v. Donald Trump, which the Supreme Court is currently considering," said the senator.

The news of Alito's upside-down flag comes after numerous reports about ethical breaches by right-wing Supreme Court justices including Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas.

Both of the justices have accepted luxury travel and have had other financial transactions with right-wing operatives who have been involved in cases before the court, and Thomas has drawn condemnation for continuing to serve on a case regarding documents being turned over to the House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack after it was revealed that his wife had supported efforts to overturn the 2020 election results.

In the coming weeks, the court is set to rule on Trump's claim that he has immunity in his federal election interference case and in a separate case regarding whether January 6 defendants should be charged with obstructing an official proceeding.

Despite four ongoing criminal cases, Trump is the presumptive Republican nominee to face Biden in November.

"The court is in an ethical crisis of its own making, and Justice Alito and the rest of the court should be doing everything in their power to regain public trust," said Durbin. "Supreme Court justices should be held to the highest ethical standards, not the lowest."

The senator added that the latest reporting offers new proof that Congress must pass the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency (SCERT) Act, which would create an enforceable code of conduct for the high court.

Indivisible co-executive director Ezra Levin applauded Durbin's call and said the news about Alito's flag "just confirms what we already knew: that the Supreme Court is stacked with far-right, partisan justices intent on using the bench to institutionalize MAGA extremism."

"This behavior is disqualifying for a Supreme Court justice," said Levin. "Alito is not an impartial arbiter of the law, especially when Donald Trump is involved. His brazen actions underscore the urgent need for increased congressional oversight of the court as well as structural reforms to restore its legitimacy."

Levin also called on Durbin to use his committee leadership position to "rigorously investigate corruption on the court and lead efforts to expand the court to unrig the MAGA supermajority."

Devin Ombres, senior director for courts and legal policy at the Center for American Progress, said Alito's display of the flag was a "matter-of-fact admission of his partisan sympathy with Donald Trump's 'Stop the Steal' movement, which led to the violent insurrection on January 6."

"His pathetic excuse that his wife hung the flag as part of a political dispute with a neighbor is even more damning because he's admitting it was a partisan act," said Ombres. "It's unacceptable that Alito now sits in judgment of whether Trump's actions deserve the imprimatur of presidential immunity. Chief Justice John Roberts and the other justices must demand Alito's recusal from any case related to the January 6 insurrection. If Alito had any sense of propriety or humility, he would resign."

#samuel alito #u.s. supreme court #ethics #bias #clarence thomas #democracy #stop the steal #jan 6 insurrection #donald trump

[beardedmrbean]

What to Know

For the second time in a decade, Sen. Bob Menendez is finding his political career and freedom on the line in a federal criminal case that already has forced him out of one of the Senate's most powerful posts

Prosecutors say he and his wife accepted gold bars, cash and a luxury car as bribes to aid three businessmen in his home state and that the favors influenced his interactions with Egypt and Qatar

Menendez's lawyers, though, say he stayed within the rules and did nothing illegal

Sen Bob Menendez, a Democrat, went on trial in Manhattan federal court Monday, accused of accepting bribes of gold and cash to use his influence to deliver favors that would help three New Jersey businessmen.

Menendez, 70, sat with his lawyers and listened as Judge Sidney H. Stein told several dozen prospective jurors about the charges against Menendez and two of the businessmen.

The judge told them the “sitting U.S. senator from the state of New Jersey” had been charged in a conspiracy in which he allegedly “agreed to accept bribes and accepted bribes.”

After he warned them that the trial was expected to last up to seven weeks, Stein let jurors raise their hands if they believed they could not serve for that length of time. Then, he took them one at a time into a separate room to ask them why.

Menendez, wearing a suit with a red tie, was dropped off in front of a Manhattan federal courthouse at 8:15 a.m., forty minutes before former President Donald Trump's motorcade passed by on its way across the street to state court, where he is on trial for allegedly falsifying business records to hide hush money payments to a porn actor before the 2016 election.

He did not speak to reporters who were kept behind barricades as he entered a security pavilion where everyone entering the courthouse is scanned.

Menendez is on trial with two of the businessmen who allegedly paid him bribes — real estate developer Fred Daibes and Wael Hana. All three have pleaded not guilty. A third businessman has pleaded guilty and agreed to testify against the other defendants. The senator's wife is also charged, but her trial is delayed until at least July.

Opening statements were possible, but unlikely, before Tuesday for a trial that has already sent the senator's political stature tumbling. After charges were announced in September, he was forced out of his powerful post as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

The three-term senator has announced he will not be seeking reelection on the Democratic ticket this fall, although he has not ruled out running as an independent.

It is the second corruption trial for Menendez in the last decade. The previous prosecution on unrelated charges ended with a deadlocked jury in 2017.

In the new case, prosecutors say the senator's efforts on behalf of the businessmen led him to take actions benefitting the governments of Egypt and Qatar. Menendez has vigorously denied doing anything unusual in his dealings with foreign officials.

Besides charges including bribery, extortion, fraud and obstruction of justice, Menendez also is charged with acting as a foreign agent of Egypt.

Among evidence his lawyers will have to explain are gold bars worth over $100,000 and more than $486,000 in cash found in a raid two years ago on his New Jersey home, including money stuffed in the pockets of clothing in closets.

The Democrat's wife, Nadine Menendez, was also charged in the case, but her trial has been postponed for health reasons. She is still expected to be a major figure. Prosecutors say Nadine Menendez often served as a conduit between the men paying the bribes and Menendez.

The senator's lawyers in court papers have said they plan to explain that Menendez had no knowledge of some of what occurred because she kept him in the dark.

According to an indictment, Daibes delivered gold bars and cash to Menendez and his wife to get the senator's help with a multimillion-dollar deal with a Qatari investment fund, prompting Menendez to act in ways favorable to Qatar's government.

The indictment also said Menendez did things benefitting Egyptian officials in exchange for bribes from Hana as the businessman secured a valuable deal with the Egyptian government to certify that imported meat met Islamic dietary requirements.

In pleading guilty several weeks ago, businessman Jose Uribe admitted buying Menendez's wife a Mercedes-Benz to get the senator's help to influence criminal investigations involving his business associates.

#nunyas news

[ridenwithbiden]

HERE COMES THE JUDGE "When Judge Tanya Chutkan presides over the new criminal case against Donald Trump, it won’t be her first time tangling with the former president and his lawyers.

In fact, the U.S. district court judge already dealt the ex-president one of the most significant legal blows of his lifetime, triggering perhaps the greatest deluge of evidence about his bid to subvert the 2020 election — a scheme for which he now stands charged with serious crimes.

The Obama-appointed jurist ruled in fall 2021 that the House Jan. 6 select committee could access reams of Trump’s White House files — a ruling that was subsequently upheld by an appeals court and left undisturbed by the Supreme Court. That evidence — call logs, memos, internal strategy papers and more from the desks of Trump’s most trusted advisers — became the backbone of the committee’s evidence and shaped much of the public’s understanding of his effort to seize a second term he didn’t win.

Much of that evidence resurfaced Tuesday in special counsel Jack Smith’s four-count indictment of Trump, which referenced call logs and White House records that were already familiar to Americans who tracked the Jan. 6 committee proceedings. Chutkan was randomly selected Tuesday to preside over Trump’s latest criminal case, his third in the last four months.

“Presidents are not kings, and Plaintiff is not President,” Chutkan wrote in her 2-year-old ruling, a rebuke that is sure to echo as she prepares to preside over the newest criminal case against the current GOP frontrunner for the presidential nomination in 2024.

Chutkan, 61, was born in Kingston, Jamaica, and came to the U.S. for college as a teenager, attending George Washington University and then law school at the University of Pennsylvania. She spent more than a decade as a public defender in Washington, D.C. She later worked for the law firm Boies Schiller & Flexner before being confirmed as a federal trial judge in Washington in 2014.

Chutkan has avoided some of the most pointed criticisms of Trump that some of her colleagues on the federal bench in D.C. have delivered as they’ve sentenced defendants who participated in the Jan. 6 mob that attacked the Capitol as part of Trump’s bid to remain in power. Judge Reggie Walton has called Trump a “charlatan.” Judge Amit Mehta has said Jan. 6 defendants were “pawns” of Trump and his allies. Judge Amy Berman Jackson has chastised Republicans for refusing to level with Trump about the 2020 election.

“It is not patriotism, it is not standing up for America to stand up for one man — who knows full well that he lost — instead of the Constitution he was trying to subvert,” Jackson said at a sentencing last year.

But Chutkan has delivered some of the harshest sentences to Jan. 6 defendants and made her disgust and horror over the attack clear, lamenting the prospect of renewed political violence in 2024 and noting that no one accused of orchestrating the effort to subvert the election had been held accountable.

“You have made a very good point,” she told Jan. 6 rioter Robert Palmer at his December 2021 sentencing, “that the people who exhorted you and encouraged you and rallied you to go and take action and to fight have not been charged.”

“The issue of who has or has not been charged is not before me. I don’t have any influence on that,” she said. “I have my opinions, but they are not relevant.”

But Chutkan also said that reality wasn’t a reason to go easy on those who bought into the election lies and acted upon that belief.

“The people who planned this and funded it and encouraged it haven’t been charged, but that’s not a reason for you to get a lower sentence,” she said. “I have to make it clear that the actions you engaged in cannot happen again. Every day we’re hearing about reports of antidemocratic factions of people plotting violence, the potential threat of violence, in 2024.”

Chutkan has alluded more specifically to Trump in other Jan. 6 sentences, including her first — to misdemeanor defendant Carl Mazzocco, who Chutkan said “went to the Capitol in support of one man, not in support of our country.”

During those early months of the Jan. 6 investigation, Chutkan also staked out territory that some of her colleagues were reluctant to tread: She pointedly rejected the equivalence some defendants were drawing between violence adjacent to Black Lives Matter protests and the riot at the Capitol.

One Trump-appointed judge, Trevor McFadden, had raised sharp questions about whether Jan. 6 defendants were being treated more harshly than people accused of similar conduct during the summertime violence of 2020.

“I think the U.S. attorney would have more credibility if it was even-handed in its concern about riots and mobs in this city,” McFadden said at the time.

Chutkan, while sentencing a defendant in a different case, appeared to allude to her colleague’s remark, before saying she “flatly” disagreed.

“People gathered all over the country last year to protest the violent murder by the police of an unarmed man. Some of those protesters became violent,” Chutkan said of the protests and rioting that followed George Floyd’s death. “But to compare the actions of people protesting, mostly peacefully, for civil rights, to those of a violent mob seeking to overthrow the lawfully elected government is a false equivalency and ignores a very real danger that the January 6 riot posed to the foundation of our democracy.”

[zvaigzdelasas]

The Newsom Regime is gonna start funding counterhegemonic civil society groups in like, florida

#newsom endowment for democracy and water-intensive crops

[odinsblog]

On the recent SCOTUS decision overturning Affirmative Action, Shira Scheindlin — former federal judge and chair of the board of Lawyer’s Committee for Civil Rights Under Law — says, “White Women Should Pay It Forward”

As a successful white woman who served for many years as a judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, I feel it is incumbent upon me and other white women in my generation to reaffirm the policies that helped us secure our positions in political institutions, academia, business, medicine and law. If the Supreme Court overturns or neuters this well-settled law, every one of us who proudly bore the title “the first woman” must work to ensure underrepresented communities maintain access to elite educational institutions.

Opponents of affirmative action suggest that it is no longer needed because the United States has reached the stage where everyone is treated equally. This is simply, and unfortunately, not the case. People of color are woefully underrepresented in many classrooms and careers. As only one example, Black lawyers make up only 2.2 percent of law firm partners, according to a 2021 National Association of Law Placement report, with Black and Latino women at less than 1 percent.

Opponents also falsely claim that students of color are being admitted to fill racial quotas, depriving white students of the chance to obtain a coveted spot. But affirmative action, as practiced today, does not discriminate against one group in favor of another.

Rather it considers race as one factor among many to put the applicant’s experiences in context.

(continue reading)

#politics #affirmative action #scotus #shira scheindlin #white privilege #pay it forward