ReportWire

Tag: government and public administration

  • ‘Serious concerns’: Top companies raise alarm over Europe’s proposed AI law | CNN Business

    ‘Serious concerns’: Top companies raise alarm over Europe’s proposed AI law | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    Dortmund, Germany
    CNN
     — 

    Dozens of Europe’s top business leaders have pushed back on the European Union’s proposed legislation on artificial intelligence, warning that it could hurt the bloc’s competitiveness and spur an exodus of investment.

    In an open letter sent to EU lawmakers Friday, C-suite executives from companies including Siemens

    (SIEGY)
    , Carrefour

    (CRERF)
    , Renault

    (RNLSY)
    and Airbus

    (EADSF)
    raised “serious concerns” about the EU AI Act, the world’s first comprehensive AI rules.

    Other prominent signatories include big names in tech, such as Yann LeCun, chief AI scientist of Meta

    (FB)
    , and Hermann Hauser, founder of British chipmaker ARM.

    “In our assessment, the draft legislation would jeopardize Europe’s competitiveness and technological sovereignty without effectively tackling the challenges we are and will be facing,” the group of more than 160 executives said in the letter.

    They argue that the draft rules go too far, especially in regulating generative AI and foundation models, the technology behind popular platforms such as ChatGPT.

    Since the craze over generative AI began this year, technologists have warned of the potential dark side of systems that allow people to use machines to write college essays, take academic tests and build websites. Last month, hundreds of top experts warned about the risk of human extinction from AI, saying mitigating that possibility “should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war.”

    The EU proposal applies a broad brush to such software “regardless of [its] use cases,” and could push innovative companies and investors out of Europe because they would face high compliance costs and “disproportionate liability risks,” according to the executives.

    “Such regulation could lead to highly innovative companies moving their activities abroad” and investors withdrawing their capital from European AI, the group wrote.

    “The result would be a critical productivity gap between the two sides of the Atlantic.”

    The executives are calling for policymakers to revise the terms of the bill, which was agreed upon by European Parliament lawmakers earlier this month and is now being negotiated with EU member states.

    “In a context where we know very little about the real risks, the business model, or the applications of generative AI, European law should confine itself to stating broad principles in a risk-based approach,” the group wrote.

    The business leaders called for a regulatory board of experts to oversee these principles and ensure they can be continuously adapted to changes in the fast-moving technology.

    The group also urged lawmakers to work with their US counterparts, noting that regulatory proposals had also been made in the United States. EU lawmakers should try to “create a legally binding level playing field,” the executives wrote.

    If such action isn’t taken and Europe is constrained by regulatory demands, it could hurt the region’s international standing, the group suggested.

    “Like the invention of the Internet or the breakthrough of silicon chips, generative AI is the kind of technology that will be decisive for the performance capacity and therefore the significance of different regions,” it said.

    Tech experts have increasingly called for greater regulation of AI as it becomes more widely used. In recent months, the United States and China have also laid out plans to regulate the technology. Sam Altman, CEO of ChatGPT maker OpenAI, has used high-profile trips around the world in recent weeks to call for co-ordinated international regulation of AI.

    The EU rules are the world’s “first ever attempt to enact” legally binding rules that apply to different areas of AI, according to the European Parliament.

    Negotiators of the AI Act hope to reach an agreement before the end of the year, and once the final rules are adopted by the European Parliament and EU member states, the act will become law.

    As they stand now, the rules would ban AI systems deemed to be harmful, including real-time facial recognition systems in public spaces, predictive policing tools and social scoring systems, such as those in China.

    The Act also outlines transparency requirements for AI systems. For instance, systems such as ChatGPT would have to disclose that their content was AI-generated and provide safeguards against the generation of illegal content.

    Engaging in prohibited AI practices could lead to hefty fines: up to €40 million ($43 million) or an amount equal to up to 7% of a company’s worldwide annual turnover, whichever is higher.

    But penalties would be “proportionate” and consider the market position of small-scale providers, suggesting there could be some leniency for startups.

    Not everyone has pushed back on the legislation so far. Earlier this month, Digital Europe, a trade association that counts SAP

    (SAP)
    and Ericsson

    (ERIC)
    among its members, called the rules “a text we can work with.”

    “However, there remain some areas which can be improved to ensure Europe becomes a competitive hub for AI innovation,” the group said in a statement.

    Dragos Tudorache, a Romanian member of parliament who led the bill’s drafting, said he was convinced that those who signed the new letter “have not read the text but have rather reacted on the stimulus of a few.”

    “The only concrete suggestions made are in fact what the [draft] text now contains: an industry-led process for defining standards, governance with industry at the table, and a light regulatory regime that asks for transparency. Nothing else,” he said in a statement.

    “It is a pity that the aggressive lobby of a few is capturing other serious companies in the net, which unfortunately undermines the undeniable lead that Europe has taken.”

    Brando Benifei, an Italian member of parliament who also led the drafting of the legislation, told CNN “we will listen to all concerns and stakeholders when dealing with AI regulation, but we have a firm commitment to deliver clear and enforceable rules.”

    “Our work could positively affect the global conversation and direction when dealing with artificial intelligence and its impact on fundamental rights, without hindering the necessary pursuit of innovation,” he said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Ohio’s showdown over abortion rights intensifies as group files signatures for ballot measure | CNN Politics

    Ohio’s showdown over abortion rights intensifies as group files signatures for ballot measure | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Ohio is poised to become the next major abortion battleground after groups seeking to enshrine abortion rights in the state’s constitution on Wednesday submitted hundreds of thousands of petition signatures to the secretary of state’s office.

    If certified, those 710,000 signatures – nearly 300,000 more than state law requires – would place the proposed amendment on ballots in November alongside municipal and school board elections across the state.

    The statewide vote would come the year after two of Ohio’s neighboring states – deep-red Kentucky and the political battleground of Michigan – supported abortion rights in their own ballot measures.

    It would position Ohio, traditionally a presidential swing state that has shifted in the GOP’s favor in recent years, as the latest test of voters’ attitudes ahead of a 2024 presidential election in which the debate over abortion rights could play a central role in both the Republican primary and the general election.

    “We know that Ohioans, just like our neighbors in Michigan and Kentucky – when they have the opportunity to vote for abortion access, they will,” said Lauren Blauvelt, vice president of Planned Parenthood Advocates of Ohio.

    Abortion rights advocates on Wednesday said they were pulled into politics in the wake of the US Supreme Court’s decision last June to overturn Roe v. Wade’s long-standing federal abortion protections and return the issue to the states.

    “I was never very political before all this started last year,” said Dr. Aziza Wahby, a Cleveland dermatologist who has become active over the last year with Ohio Physicians for Reproductive Rights, a group that was part of the effort to gather signatures. “This has made me pay more attention and I think it will do the same for others.”

    The proposed amendment in Ohio would ensure “every individual has a right to make and carry out one’s reproductive decisions.” It could make Ohio the only state with a ballot measure on abortion rights this year.

    Local officials have until July 20 to verify the signatures, with Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose having final approval to place the issue on this fall’s ballots by July 25.

    Before the November election, though, is another key vote: an August 8 special election set by Ohio’s Republican-dominated legislature, in which voters will decide whether to raise the threshold for amending the state constitution from the current simple majority to 60%.

    The debate over the constitutional amendment and the change to the amendment process has galvanized both sides of the abortion fight.

    After filing U-Haul truckloads of petition signatures Wednesday, abortion rights advocates complained that the special election was slated for a moment when families will be wrapping up summer vacations and preparing for the start of school – a period when the state’s voters are not used to casting ballots.

    “And they’re doing that on purpose because they know that their agenda is not the agenda of Ohioans,” said Kellie Copeland, the executive director of Pro-Choice Ohio.

    Amy Fogel, who said she became awakened to politics during the Trump era and joined the grassroots group Red Wine and Blue, has spent months helping collect signatures for the citizen-led initiative for the November ballot. She said she was “absolutely heartbroken” when the August special election was approved by the Republican supermajority in the statehouse.

    “It was just a blatant power grab to take away the majority vote of Ohioans,” Fogel said.

    She said she and other volunteers would not be deterred by the new hurdle.

    “We started out telling people to vote in November and now we have to tell them to make sure you plan an absentee ballot, vote early, or show up at the polls on August 8,” Fogel said. “You have to vote ‘No,’ to protect the Ohio constitution and majority vote in August and then ‘Yes,’ in November.”

    It is confusing, she said, by design.

    Amy Natoce, the press secretary for Protect Women Ohio, the coalition working to defeat the abortion rights ballot measure in November, dismissed suggestions that a special election in August was in any way undemocratic because of concerns over historically low voter turnout in the summer.

    “There is no time like the present to protect Ohio’s constitution,” Natoce said in an interview. “Ohioans should be reminded of the fact that this is allowing them to determine how their constitution is amended. We’ve seen the other side saying one person, one vote, this takes away the people’s vote. Not at all.”

    For the next month, both campaigns will be unfolding across Ohio – on “Issue 1,” to raise the threshold of support needed to change the constitution, and on the November ballot measure on abortion. From door-to-door canvassing to a multi-million dollar television ad campaign, both sides are intensifying their efforts ahead of the August and November elections.

    “We’re going to continue in all 88 counties across Ohio,” Natoce said. “But we have to move ahead as if it will be on the ballot in November.”

    Two former Republican governors, Bob Taft and John Kasich, have come out against the August 8 special election, saying such a consequential change to state law shouldn’t happen during a low-turnout summer election.

    “I just think it’s a major mistake to approve or disapprove such a change at the lowest-turnout election that we have,” Taft said at a forum in Dayton last week. “This is a kind of change that really needs to be considered by all the people who go out and vote in a presidential election.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Meta cut election teams months before Threads launch, raising concerns for 2024 | CNN Business

    Meta cut election teams months before Threads launch, raising concerns for 2024 | CNN Business

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Meta has made cuts to its teams that tackle disinformation and coordinated troll and harassment campaigns on its platforms, people with direct knowledge of the situation told CNN, raising concerns ahead of the pivotal 2024 elections in the US and around the world.

    Several members of the team that countered mis- and disinformation in the 2022 US midterms were laid off last fall and this spring, a person familiar with the matter said. The staffers are part of a global team that works on Meta’s efforts to counter disinformation campaigns seeking to undermine confidence in or sow confusion around elections.

    The news comes as Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, is celebrating the unparalleled success of its new Threads platform, surpassing 100 million users just five days after launch and opening a potential new avenue for bad actors.

    A Meta spokesperson did not specify, when asked, how many staffers had been cut from its teams working on elections. In a statement to CNN on Monday night, the spokesperson said, “Protecting the US 2024 elections is one of our top priorities, and our integrity efforts continue to lead the industry.”

    The spokesperson did not answer CNN questions about what additional resources had been deployed to monitor and moderate its new platform. Instead, Meta said the social media giant had invested $16 billion in technology and teams since 2016 to protect its users.

    But the decision to lay off staffers ahead of 2024, when elections will not only take place in the United States but also in Taiwan, Ukraine, India and elsewhere, has raised concerns among those with direct knowledge of Meta’s election integrity work.

    The disparate nature of Meta’s work on elections makes it difficult for even people inside the company to say specifically how many people are part of the effort. One group of relevant employees hit harder by the layoffs were “content review” specialists who manually review election-related posts that may violate Meta’s terms of service, a person familiar with the cuts told CNN.

    Meta is trying to offset those cuts by more proactively detecting accounts that spread false election-related information, said the person, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the press.

    For years, the social media giant has invested heavily in teams of personnel to root out sophisticated and coordinated networks of fake accounts. That “coordinated inauthentic behavior,” as Meta calls it, began in the lead up to the 2016 election when an infamous Russian government-linked troll operation ran amuck on Facebook.

    The team tasked with combating the influence campaigns – which includes former US government and intelligence officials – has been generally seen as the most robust in the social media industry. The company has published quarterly reports in recent years that expose governments and other entities found to have been operating covert campaigns pushing disinformation on Meta’s platforms.

    Those teams investigating disinformation campaigns now must further prioritize which campaigns and countries to focus on, another person familiar with the situation said, a trade-off that could result in some deceptive efforts going unnoticed.

    The person emphasized that Meta still has a dedicated team of professionals working on these issues, many of whom are widely respected in the cyber and information security communities.

    But while artificial intelligence and other automated systems can help detect some of these efforts, unearthing sophisticated disinformation networks is still a “very manual process” that involves intense scrutiny from expert staff, another person with direct knowledge of Meta’s counter disinformation efforts told CNN.

    The person said they feared Meta was regressing from progress it had made from learning from past mistakes. “Lessons that were learned at great costs,” they said, citing the company’s 2018 admission that its platforms were used to incite violence in Myanmar.

    In addition to its in-house team, Meta and other social media companies rely on tips from academics and other researchers who specialize in monitoring covert disinformation networks.

    Darren Linvill, a professor at Clemson University’s Media Forensics Hub, said he has sent the company valuable tips in recent months, but Meta’s response time has slowed significantly.

    Linvill, who has a long track record of successfully identifying covert online accounts, including helping to unearth a Russian election meddling effort in Africa in 2020, said that Meta recently removed a network of Russian language accounts that were posting both pro and anti-Ukraine content on Facebook and Instagram.

    “They were trying to stoke anger on both sides of the debates,” he said.

    Launched last Thursday, Threads has become an instant success with celebrities, politicians, and journalists flocking to the platform.

    The new Twitter-style app is tied to users’ existing Instagram accounts, rather than being linked directly to Facebook. Currently, Threads shares the same community standards as Instagram, but the platforms differ on issues relating to Meta’s methods to combat disinformation.

    Meta also applies labels to state-controlled accounts on Facebook and Instagram, such as Russia’s Sputnik news agency and China’s CCTV. However, these labels do not appear on state-controlled accounts on Threads.

    The launch of Threads even as Meta trims its disinformation-focused personnel comes at a turbulent and transformative time for those tasked with writing and implementing rules on social media platforms.

    Elon Musk, the billionaire who bought Twitter last year, has all but torn up that platform’s rule book and gutted the team that worked on implementing policies designed to combat disinformation efforts.

    Last month, YouTube, which has also made job cuts, announced it would allow videos that feature the false claim the 2020 US presidential election was stolen, a reversal of its previous policy.

    The rule reversals come as the Republican-controlled House of Representatives investigates interactions between technology companies and the federal government.

    Last week, a federal judge in Louisiana ordered some Biden administration agencies and top officials not to communicate with social media companies about certain content, handing a win to GOP states in a lawsuit accusing the government of going too far in its effort to combat Covid-19 disinformation.

    The restrictions and the scrutiny could give cover to social media companies that may want to pull back on some of their platforms’ rules around election integrity, said Katie Harbath, a former Facebook official who helped lead the company’s global election efforts until 2021.

    “I can [almost] hear [Meta Global Affairs President] Nick Clegg saying that ‘we’re going to be cautious of what we do, because we wouldn’t want to run afoul of the law,’” Harbath said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Suspended Texas AG Ken Paxton seeks to have most impeachment articles tossed | CNN Politics

    Suspended Texas AG Ken Paxton seeks to have most impeachment articles tossed | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Attorneys for suspended Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton have asked that the majority of the articles of impeachment brought against him be dismissed, arguing he can’t be tried for alleged actions that took place before his current term.

    In a filing to the state Senate’s impeachment court on Monday, Paxton’s attorneys sought to dismiss 19 of the 20 articles of impeachment, citing a rule known as “prior-term doctrine.” The rule, they argued, would prevent an official from being impeached over alleged conduct that precedes their most recent election.

    The move comes after the Texas House of Representatives impeached Paxton in May for alleged misconduct, including allegations that he used his office to favor the interests of a prominent donor. He has denied the allegations. Under the Texas Constitution, Paxton is suspended from office while the matter is pending but would be reinstated if acquitted by the Senate.

    CNN has reached out to the Texas Senate about the filings.

    In a second motion filed Monday, Paxton’s team also asked that evidence of “any alleged conduct” that occurred prior to January 2023 when Paxton began his third term in office be excluded from the state Senate’s trial.

    “The allegations making up the Articles contain unsupported, vague, and irrelevant assertions of non-impeachable conduct,” the motion to exclude evidence stated, adding that the articles “are not based on any alleged conduct that occurred after the election of November 2022, or after [Paxton] began his third term in January 2023.”

    Paxton’s attorneys said at the outset of the motion that the state House and its counsel “promised the public that the evidence against the Attorney General is ‘clear, compelling and decisive’ and ‘ten times worse than what has been public.’”

    But, they argued, “now that the House Managers have been forced by this Court to turn over their evidence through document production, it is clear that the evidence the House Managers have gathered is 100 times less compelling that what has been proclaimed.”

    Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott has since appointed former Texas Secretary of State John Scott as a temporary replacement, while Paxton awaits his September 5 impeachment trial.

    During the Senate impeachment trial, the lieutenant governor will function as the judge and the senators will serve as jurors. A two-thirds vote of those present would be required to convict. Attorneys for Paxton said earlier this month he will not testify during the trial.

    Paxton, a conservative firebrand who has closely aligned himself with former President Donald Trump, has brought over two dozen cases against the Biden administration as Texas’s top prosecutor.

    CNN previously reported that he is also facing an FBI investigation for abuse of office and that Justice Department prosecutors in Washington, DC, took over a corruption investigation into Paxton. He is also under indictment for securities fraud in a separate, unrelated case. Paxton has denied all charges and allegations.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Senate votes to end Covid-19 emergency, 3 years after initial declaration | CNN Politics

    Senate votes to end Covid-19 emergency, 3 years after initial declaration | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The Senate on Wednesday passed a bill that would end the national Covid-19 emergency declared by then-President Donald Trump on March 13, 2020.

    The final vote was overwhelmingly bipartisan, 68-23. The joint resolution, which cleared the House earlier this year, now heads to President Joe Biden’s desk.

    The vote comes on the heels of two other successful efforts led by Republicans in approving legislation rescinding Biden administration policies.

    A White House official said in a statement to CNN that while the President “strongly opposes” this bill, the administration is already winding down the emergency by May 11, the date previously announced for the end of the authority.

    Still, the official noted, if the Senate passed the measure and it heads to Biden’s desk, “he will sign it, and the administration will continue working with agencies to wind down the national emergency with as much notice as possible to Americans who could potentially be impacted.”

    The White House said in January that Biden “strongly opposes” the GOP resolution to end the Covid-19 emergency, according to its statement of administration policy, but did not threaten a veto.

    While the lack of an explicit veto threat left the possibility of Biden signing the measure a clear, if not likely, option, Biden’s ultimate decision to sign the bill marked another moment where House Democrats have privately voiced frustration that the lack of clarity – or outright messaging mishap – from the White House left lawmakers in a lurch.

    House Democrats largely voted against the bill when it was brought to the floor in February except for 11 Democrats who joined Republicans in support. A separate White House official noted that the Senate vote comes after several weeks when the Biden administration has had time to accelerate its wind-down efforts – and just a little over a month before they’d announced the emergency would end.

    But it also comes after the administration drew blowback from House Democrats after sending what lawmakers viewed as mixed signals over how the president planned to respond to a Republican-led resolution that would block a controversial Washington, DC, crime bill, which opponents criticized as weak on crime. The president ultimately did not veto the measure.

    The measure was able to succeed in the Senate by a simple majority through the Congressional Review Act, which allows a vote to repeal regulations from the executive branch without breaking a filibuster at a 60-vote threshold that is required for most legislation in the chamber.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • How Disney maneuvered to save its Florida kingdom, leaving DeSantis threatening retaliation | CNN Politics

    How Disney maneuvered to save its Florida kingdom, leaving DeSantis threatening retaliation | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    In his yearlong battle with Disney, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has repeatedly leaned on the element of surprise in his attempts to outmaneuver the entertainment giant and its army of executives, high-priced lawyers and politically connected lobbyists.

    “Nobody can see this coming,” DeSantis told a top Republican legislative leader as they planned a move against Disney last year, he recalled in his new book.

    But when Disney finally struck back and thwarted, for now, a DeSantis-led state takeover of its long-standing special taxing district, it was the Republican governor who was seemingly caught off guard. The same February morning Disney pushed through an agreement with the district’s outgoing board that secured control of its development rights for decades to come, DeSantis had declared to cameras and supporters, “There’s a new sheriff in town.”

    Now, weeks after DeSantis signed legislation intended to give the state power over Disney’s district, the company appears still in control of the huge swaths of land around its Orlando-area theme parks. Newly installed DeSantis allies overseeing the district are gearing up for a protracted legal fight while the governor has ordered an investigation. DeSantis on Thursday disputed that he had been outflanked by Disney and vowed further actions that could include taxes on its hotels, new tolls around its theme parks and developing land near its property.

    “They can keep trying to do things, but, ultimately, we’re gonna win on every single issue involving Disney. I can tell you that,” the second-term governor said during an event at the conservative Hillsdale College in Michigan.

    The unlikely fracturing of Florida’s relationship with its most iconic business started during the contentious debate last year over state legislation to restrict certain classroom instruction on sexuality and gender identity. Disney’s then-CEO, Bob Chapek, facing pressure from his employees, reluctantly objected to the bill, leading DeSantis to criticize the company. When DeSantis signed the legislation into law, Disney announced it would push for its repeal. DeSantis then targeted Disney’s special governing powers.

    For DeSantis, who has built a political brand by going toe-to-toe with businesses he identifies as “woke,” the latest twist threatens to undermine a central pillar of his story as he lays the groundwork for a likely presidential campaign. An entire chapter of his new autobiography is devoted to Disney, and the saga is well-featured in the stump speech he has delivered around the country in recent weeks.

    In Florida’s capital of Tallahassee, some veteran Republican operatives, exhausted by DeSantis’ high-profile cultural fights, are tickled that Disney appears to have one-upped the governor, a GOP source said. Meanwhile, allies of former President Donald Trump, the front-runner for the 2024 GOP nomination, have seized on the move to poke holes in DeSantis’ narrative, with MAGA Inc. PAC spokesman Taylor Budowich tweeting that the governor “just got out-negotiated by Mickey Mouse.” Other potential GOP contenders and Republicans have publicly raised objections to DeSantis’ targeting of a private business.

    “Disney gave him a lot of rope,” said John Morgan, an influential Orlando-area trial lawyer and Democratic donor who is often complimentary of DeSantis. “They obviously tried to resolve it, but there was no stopping him because DeSantis wanted the fight. Disney always knew it had that trump card.”

    Morgan’s legal career was inspired by his family’s failed attempts to sue the special district after his brother was paralyzed while working as a Disney lifeguard. But Morgan learned through that episode the difficulties of challenging a corporate titan.

    “In the end, they were never going to lose this,” Morgan said.

    What remains unanswered is how DeSantis appeared unaware of Disney’s maneuvering after spending the past year fixated on punishing and embarrassing the company.

    As DeSantis plotted in secret, Disney moved in the open.

    Its development agreement was approved over the course of two public meetings held two weeks apart earlier this year, both noticed in the local Orlando newspaper and attended by about a dozen residents and members of the media. No one from the governor’s office was present at either meeting, according to the meeting minutes.

    “You spend all that energy and attention on Disney, and then no one minds the store?” said Aaron Goldberg, an author and Disney historian. “Disney was playing chess, and DeSantis was playing checkers.”

    DeSantis’ office told CNN in a statement that it was first alerted to Disney’s efforts to thwart the state takeover of its special taxing district on March 18 by the district’s lawyers. Yet, the governor remained quiet until March 29, when his new appointees to Disney’s oversight board first made the public aware of the arrangement, drawing national attention and an outpouring of snickering from his detractors.

    According to DeSantis’ office, Disney was pushing for silence. In a statement to CNN, Ray Treadwell, DeSantis’ chief deputy general counsel, accused Disney lobbyist Adam Babington of petitioning the governor’s office to help keep its agreement under wraps when the new board met on March 29.

    “I made quite clear to him and the other Disney representatives that the validity of any such last-minute agreement would likely be challenged,” Treadwell said in the statement.

    Disney and Babington did not respond to multiple requests for comment. In a previous statement, the company said, “All agreements signed between Disney and the District were appropriate, and were discussed and approved in open, noticed public forums in compliance with Florida’s Government in the Sunshine law.”

    The episode is illustrative of the potential pitfalls of seeking to score political points against a big corporation fighting on its home turf. Addressing the controversy during a call with shareholders Monday, Disney CEO Bob Iger signaled he wouldn’t back away from the fight, calling DeSantis’ actions “not just anti-business, but it sounds anti-Florida.”

    “A lot of us anticipated Disney would strike back and not allow its powers be taken away without some kind of response,” said Richard Foglesong, author of “Married to the Mouse: Walt Disney World and Orlando.”

    “It must have been ticklish on Disney’s part that it wasn’t noticed initially,” he said.

    When DeSantis first clashed with Disney last year, Foglesong signed a copy of his book that a DeSantis political ally intended to hand to the governor. Through an unvarnished lens, the book chronicles the Reedy Creek Improvement District – the special government body that state lawmakers created in 1967 to give Disney the power to develop and then control nearly every facet of its theme park empire – and the local officials who paid a political price for challenging the House of Mouse.

    DeSantis’ office wouldn’t say if he had read the book. Foglesong said there’s a message in its pages that DeSantis should have heeded: “Simply don’t count Disney out.”

    Last May, as DeSantis began to feature his battles with Disney in political speeches, two state officials quietly met with top administrators at Reedy Creek.

    By then, DeSantis had already enacted a new law that would eventually eliminate the special taxing district. But it was also clear that the law wasn’t a tenable long-term outcome. It was possibly illegal, unless the state wanted to pay off the district’s outstanding debt, estimated at $1 billion. Meanwhile, bond rating agencies were threatening a downgrade, and nearby local governments expressed little interest in taking on the maintenance and services for the district’s 25,000 sprawling acres around Disney’s Orlando-area theme parks.

    The visit by Treadwell and Ben Watkins, the state’s seasoned bond director, lasted about an hour. From the Reedy Creek side, the meeting was a positive step toward an amicable stalemate, according to sources with knowledge of the meeting, one that would largely continue Disney’s unique powers with some concessions while still allowing DeSantis to claim victory.

    But the DeSantis administration broke off communications after the meeting, the sources said.

    DeSantis’ office for months declined to say what would come next, but Watkins, in an August appearance on “The Bond Buyer” podcast, laid out a proposed framework for taking over Reedy Creek. It involved stripping the district of longstanding but never-used authorities, such as to build a nuclear power plant and to acquire property through eminent domain. But he hinted at a takeover of Reedy Creek’s board, which throughout its history had been occupied by people with close ties to Disney.

    “The other thing that I would expect is a reconsideration of how the board of Reedy Creek is appointed and qualified to serve, to be appointed by state leadership with a broader interest across the spectrum of interest, across the state,” Watkins said.

    The timing of the next move remained secret until January 6, when DeSantis’ office posted on the Osceola County government website its intent to seek legislation to overhaul Reedy Creek. In Florida, changes to a special district must be published for the public to see at least 30 days in advance. Disney was on the clock.

    The company then prepared a draft developer’s agreement for Reedy Creek board members to approve that would guarantee Disney’s development rights for the next 30 years, a source with knowledge of the arrangement said. Twelve days after the state’s notice was published online, Reedy Creek published its own notice in the Orlando Sentinel for a meeting to consider the Disney draft. The board intended to vote, the notice said, on an agreement that would affect “a majority of the land located within the jurisdictional boundaries of Reedy Creek Improvement District.”

    The Reedy Creek board held two public hearings on the development agreement, as required by Florida law, on January 25 and February 8.

    DeSantis appeared in Central Florida just as the board gave final approval to the agreement on February 8. At the same time, state lawmakers were meeting in Tallahassee in a special session to pass DeSantis’ takeover of Reedy Creek, which included a provision that gave him the power to pick all five of the district’s board members. Neither DeSantis nor the Republican lawmakers advancing the legislation made statements indicating awareness of the votes taking place inside the district.

    Instead, DeSantis, speaking an hour after the Reedy Creek board handed Disney the requested powers, declared that the company was “no longer going to have self-government” and teased that the new board might push for more Disney World discounts for Florida residents.

    Goldberg, the author of several books on Disney, said the company in its history has repeatedly demonstrated that it knows its special arrangement better than the government that gave it to them. Indeed, the morning after Florida state Rep. Randy Fine introduced DeSantis’ bill to sunset Reedy Creek last year, the Republican legislator instructed staff to order Goldberg’s book “Buying Disney’s World” and directed them to “Read today,” according to emails obtained by CNN.

    “With Disney, there is always a Plan B, something in the works from the jump in case things went wrong with the state,” Goldberg told CNN.

    On February 27, DeSantis signed the bill giving him the power to pick all five members on the Reedy Creek board and named his appointees, including an influential donor, the wife of the state’s GOP leader and a former pastor who has pushed unfounded conspiracies about gay people.

    Historically, the Reedy Creek board oversaw a fire department, water systems, roadways and building inspections around the Disney theme parks and could issue bonds and take on debt for long-term infrastructure programs. But DeSantis suggested that the new board could also influence Disney’s entertainment offerings.

    “When you lose your way, you know, you gotta have people that are going to tell you the truth, and so we hope that they can get back on,” DeSantis said at the signing. “But I think all these board members very much would like to see the type of entertainment that all families can appreciate.”

    However, a month later, the new board revealed it was effectively powerless.

    “This essentially makes Disney the government,” new board member Ron Peri said during the March 29 meeting.

    In addition to giving away oversight of Disney development, the outgoing board also agreed not to use any of Disney’s “fanciful characters” like Mickey Mouse – until “21 years after the death of the last survivor of the descendants of King Charles III, king of England,” according to a copy of the deal included in the February 8 meeting packet.

    The reference to the British monarch is a contracting tactic known as the “royal lives clause,” intended to avoid rules against perpetual agreements. While relatively common legalese, its inclusion raised eyebrows. In the halls of the Florida Capitol, people have murmured “God save the king” to each other in passing, the GOP source said.

    In a letter ordering the state inspector general to investigate the agreement, DeSantis accused the outgoing board of “inadequate notice” and a “lack of consideration.”

    “These collusive and self-dealing arrangements aim to nullify the recently passed legislation, undercut Florida’s legislative process, and defy the will of Floridians,” DeSantis wrote.

    But it’s unclear how DeSantis can regain the advantage against a company with unlimited resources at its disposal and a seemingly ironclad legal agreement. Iger, in his remarks to shareholders this week, said the company “always appreciated what the state has done for us” and reaffirmed its commitment to growing its massive footprint there over the next decade with plans to invest $17 billion in Disney World.

    “Disney looked at this and said, ‘We have the law on our side, we can protect ourselves, and we’re going to do it,’” said Danaya C. Wright, a University of Florida law professor. “It’s perfectly reasonable to do it. There might be a desire to take on larger issues. But you start messing with one of the major economic engines of the state, they’re going to circle the wagons.”

    Since the March 29 meeting, DeSantis’ administration has also stripped Reedy Creek – now called the Orange County Tourism Oversight District – of its authority to inspect Disney’s 600 pools, a source told CNN. A spokeswoman for DeSantis didn’t respond to a CNN inquiry about pool oversight, but DeSantis said Friday that state agencies would conduct inspections on Disney’s properties.

    Speaking in Michigan on Thursday, DeSantis suggested more retribution is coming.

    “All I can say is that story’s not over yet,” he said. “Buckle up.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The government wants to change how it collects race and ethnicity data. Here’s what you need to know | CNN Politics

    The government wants to change how it collects race and ethnicity data. Here’s what you need to know | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    If you’ve filled out a survey at any point in the last 25 years, chances are you were asked two questions about your race and ethnicity: Whether you are of Hispanic or Latino descent, and then separately, if your race is White, Black, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American or another race.

    A new proposal aims to change that, merging the two questions into one and adding a new category for people of Middle Eastern and North African descent. That would alter how the government – and by extension, the research community studying Americans’ demographics, opinions, voting habits and behaviors – measures and reports on the race and ethnicity of the American public.

    The proposal put forth by a working group of government statisticians and methodologists is at least partly an effort to reduce the share of Americans choosing a nebulous “some other race” category that is required to be included in the decennial census and the American Community Survey, two of the key government studies measuring American demographics.

    While some researchers say the proposed changes would improve the accuracy and depth of the data available on race and ethnicity, others – particularly those who advocate for the Afro-Latino community – fear the plan would make it harder to understand racially driven inequalities in the US.

    Decisions about what gets measured and how reach far beyond the numbers that appear on the Census Bureau’s website: Data gathered through these questions drives the way racial disparities in housing, health care and employment are understood and tracked, how congressional districts are drawn, and how the resources of some government programs are allocated and assessed. It can affect policymaking at the federal, state and local levels.

    “The simple fact is that if your community is not visible in the statistics, you are functionally invisible when it comes to political representation,” said Thomas Wolf, the deputy director of the democracy program at the liberal-leaning Brennan Center for Justice at the NYU law school.

    The public comment period on the changes closes on April 27 after being extended. Nearly 18,000 comments had already been submitted on the Federal Register notice page as of Sunday morning. Once the comment period ends, the standards will be in the hands of the nation’s chief statistician, Dr. Karin Orvis. Final decisions on the standards are expected by the summer of 2024.

    Here’s what to know about the proposals.

    The Office of Management and Budget sets standards for both the wording of questions and the types of data government agencies and surveys must collect when they are gathering information about Americans’ racial and ethnic identities.

    The existing standards, which have been in place since 1997, call for one question asking whether respondents have Hispanic or Latino background followed by a second question on racial identity, with options for American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African American, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, and White.

    Because of a congressional law passed in 2005, the decennial census and the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey are also required to include a “some other race” category in the second question.

    Over time, the Census Bureau has seen a notable increase in the number of people choosing that option. In the 2020 census, “some other race” was the second-largest racial group with 49.9 million people opting for it. That trend has raised questions about whether the two separate questions accurately capture the racial makeup of the country.

    “The ‘some other race’ category is intended to be a residual category for people who do not identify with any of the minimum OMB categories,” Merarys Rios-Vargas, the chief of the ethnicity and ancestry branch of the Census Bureau’s population division, said during a webinar on the proposed changes hosted by the NALEO Education Fund last month. “But when the residual category is the second-largest response group, changes need to be made, and we have identified a solution with the combined question.”

    If implemented, the new standards would merge collection of race and ethnicity information into a single question, expand the categories used to measure race and ethnicity, and mandate the collection of more detailed information on race and ethnicity whenever possible.

    The proposed combined question measuring a respondent’s race or ethnicity includes seven broad categories: White, Hispanic or Latino, Black or African American, Asian, American Indian or Alaska Native, Middle Eastern or North African, and Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander. Respondents can choose multiple categories from that list. The congressionally mandated “some other race” category would also continue for the decennial census and ACS.

    Under the existing standard, respondents of Middle Eastern or North African, or MENA, descent were typically considered racially White. Census Bureau research conducted in 2015 suggested that without a distinct MENA category, roughly 12% of people who otherwise had been identified as MENA chose “some other race,” but that dipped to just 3% with the addition of a separate MENA category.

    The proposed changes would also require the collection of more detailed information on national or tribal origin within each of the major racial or ethnic categories. An example provided by the working group includes checkboxes for some common subgroups (such as Italian under White, Puerto Rican under Hispanic or Latino, Korean under Asian, etc.) as well as an open-ended box in which respondents could write in any additional detail they wanted to share.

    The proposed standards result from a review launched by the Office of the Chief Statistician of the United States last year, building on work conducted in the previous decade by the Census Bureau, the OMB and others. A working group of federal experts put together the proposed changes, and the OMB released the working group’s proposals for public comment in late January.

    Part of the challenge in formulating these questions is that race itself is more a social than a scientific matter. As the Census Bureau puts it, the categories “generally reflect a social definition of race recognized in this country and not an attempt to define race biologically, anthropologically, or genetically.”

    Because the questions used in government work set the standard for much other research, they can affect the way Americans classify their own racial and ethnic identity.

    “The way that we talk about race in this country has been very much shaped by the way we ask about it,” said Mark Hugo Lopez, the director of race and ethnicity research at the Pew Research Center.

    A Pew survey in January 2020 asking respondents to describe their race or ethnicity without offering categories found that about 8 in 10 gave responses that fit within the OMB’s race or ethnicity categories. When the same participants were separately asked about their race and ethnicity using questions from the 2020 census, nearly all respondents were consistent across the two formats, but the mismatch was significantly larger for those of Hispanic or Latino heritage.

    The government’s working group noted that a “large and increasing percentage of Hispanic or Latino respondents” to both the Census and the ACS are skipping the race question outright or choosing “some other race.”

    Recently released data from the 2020 census made public by the Census Bureau shows that 43.6% of the Hispanic population either skipped the race question or reported being “some other race” alone during the decennial count. The Census Bureau contends that its research shows this is because “a large proportion of the Hispanic population does not identify with any of the current Office of Management and Budget race categories.”

    Wolf, of the Brennan Center, noted the challenge that type of mismatch could present to the usefulness of the data.

    “If someone’s self-identification doesn’t map onto the categories that federal law recognizes, the data does not really help people activate and protect their civil rights,” he said.

    Researchers outside the government are largely dependent on the OMB standards to frame questions on race and ethnicity in a way that allows comparisons with the gold-standard government studies that track American demographics. Some of these researchers are concerned that respondents who do not see themselves represented in the data may be less inclined to participate in surveys. Insights Association, a professional organization for market researchers, conducted testing on how to ask about race and ethnicity in a way that respondents prefer and found that a single question with more detailed response categories received the most positive feedback.

    Cindy Neumann, the director of research for the Insights Association, said, “Where [respondents] feel that they’re included, we feel that they’re going to be a little bit more willing to participate in research, and engage a bit more.”

    A 2015 test by the Census Bureau found that a combined question on race and ethnicity decreased the share of respondents choosing “some other race” or skipping the question entirely. For Hispanic respondents, a significantly higher share identified as Hispanic alone under the combined format, suggesting they could be less likely to select one of the race categories also offered in a combined question than they would have using separate questions.

    Some are concerned that the proposed standards aren’t measuring the right information.

    Many of the public comments submitted in response to the proposals or shared during a series of town halls OMB hosted in March have focused on the language used in the Black or African American category. A movement has emerged to add a category to measure those who are descended from enslaved people in the United States separately from people of African or Caribbean descent. The comments submitted reflect disagreement about the specific language and structure that would best capture the community, but suggestions have included adding categories for American Descendants of Slavery, American Freedmen, or Foundational Black American, separating Black American from African American, and adding a separate question asking whether a person is a descendant of enslaved people. Each could measure a part of the population that some feel is unrecognized under the current standards.

    Among advocates for the Afro-Latino community, researchers worry that asking about Hispanic or Latino ethnicity within the same question as race could minimize the detail available about the racial makeup of the Latino community.

    “If I, for example, a Black Latina, want to mark my Latinoness but also say that I’m a Black woman, then I have to choose Latino as my race and Black as my race and then I’m counted as multi-racial,” said Danielle Clealand, an associate professor at the University of Texas who studies Afro-Latino identity. “What it does is turn many of us who identify as Black or White or Native American as multi-racial, and that is not how we self-identify.”

    Critics of the proposal say multiple questions are necessary to measure race, ethnicity and national origin, since a single question could muddy the measurement of those identifiers, even if responses related to each of those concepts are available for respondents to choose.

    “You don’t measure two concepts with one question, and so by putting Hispanic ethnicity and race into one question, you are risking a huge undercount not only of racially stigmatized groups but also of the overall Latino origin population,” said Nancy López, a sociology professor at the University of New Mexico who directs and co-founded the school’s Institute for the Study of “Race” and Social Justice.

    “It’s not going to help us know how you are treated, and if there’s an injustice that needs to be rectified,” she said.

    The components of race and ethnicity that can affect how a person experiences the world may not be evident in their answers, according to critics of the proposal. A person’s racial or ethnic self-identification may not match the way they are perceived and treated by others, or may not align with their national origin or ethnic heritage. If the questions ultimately used in the government standards aren’t clear about which aspects they measure, their utility could be diminished, the critics say.

    The stakes are extremely high. In making any changes to the way race and ethnicity are measured, the working group and the chief statistician will need to strike a balance between reflecting the ways Americans choose to identify themselves with fulfilling the need for data that allows the government to enforce its own laws.

    “Does this allow us to do the things that the census is intended to do – voting rights, civil rights, allocation of congressional districts,” said Lopez from Pew. “Race and ethnicity is central to the work of folks who are in those spaces.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Sanders brushes aside concerns about Biden’s age: ‘Age is one thing. I think experience is another’ | CNN Politics

    Sanders brushes aside concerns about Biden’s age: ‘Age is one thing. I think experience is another’ | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders on Sunday brushed aside concerns about President Joe Biden’s age following the president’s reelection bid announcement, saying “Age is one thing. I think experience is another.”

    The independent senator, who, at 81, is a year older than Biden, told CNN’s Dana Bash on “State of the Union” that “if you believe in democracy – you want to see more people vote, not fewer people vote, I think the choice is pretty clear. And that choice is Biden.”

    Sanders, who caucuses with Democrats in the Senate, endorsed Biden’s reelection bid last week, and the president is likely to enjoy an easy path to the 2024 Democratic nomination. Author Marianne Williamson and anti-vaccine activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. are challenging him in the primary, but no major Democratic candidates are expected to join them.

    But at 80, Biden is the nation’s oldest president. Polls have consistently reflected concern about his age, even among Democrats.

    Although there are clear moments when Biden is visibly slower physically than he was, dozens of aides, administration officials and members of Congress who’ve spent time with him have relayed stories to CNN about how thorough and demanding he is in meeting after meeting.

    Sanders, who is up for reelection 2024 but has yet to detail his plans, said Sunday that the key for Democrats to hold the White House rests in a stronger focus on “working-class issues.”

    The party, he said, has “got to make it clear that we believe in a government that represents all, not just the few. Take on the greed of the insurance companies, the drug companies, Wall Street, all the big money interests, and start delivering for working-class people.”

    “You do that,” he said, “I think Biden is going to win in a landslide.”

    Biden conceded earlier this month that he “took a hard look” at his own age as he contemplated whether to seek reelection.

    “(The American electorate is) going to see a race, and they’re going to judge whether or not I have it or don’t have it. I respect them taking a hard look at it. I take a hard look at it as well – I took a hard look at it before I decided to run, and I feel good, I feel excited about the prospects,” Biden said when pressed on his age during a joint news conference alongside South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol at the White House.

    “With regard to age, I can’t even say I guess how old I am. I can’t even say the number – it doesn’t register with me,” he joked.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Meta shuts down network of fake accounts that ‘signal a shift’ in China-based influence efforts | CNN Business

    Meta shuts down network of fake accounts that ‘signal a shift’ in China-based influence efforts | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    Facebook’s parent company Meta announced Wednesday that it has taken down a network of more than 100 China-based accounts that posed as organizations in the US and Europe and pushed pro-Beijing talking points.

    The Facebook and Instagram accounts, which included a fictitious news organization and posed as a think tank, likely used deepfake images developed through artificial intelligence to make the fake accounts appear legitimate, Meta said.

    The network, which had more than 15,000 followers on Meta’s platforms, appears to have had some financial resources behind it. In one instance, the people behind the accounts called for protests in Budapest against George Soros, the billionaire philanthropist and frequent target of right-wing groups, and posted on Twitter an offer to pay people to attend. The accounts also offered to pay freelance writers to contribute to at least one of its websites.

    The accounts were awash with pro-China commentary, including “warnings against boycotting the 2022 Beijing Olympics; allegations of US foreign policy in Africa,” and “claims of comfortable living conditions for Uyghurs in China,” Meta said in its report. The fake accounts also posted “negative commentary about Uyghur activists and critics of the Chinese state,” it said.

    Meta did not link the network to the Chinese government, instead saying it found links to individuals in China associated with a technology company. CNN has reached out to the company for comment. Meta regularly takes down covert influence campaigns and discloses information about them in quarterly reports.

    The takedowns “signal a shift in the nature” of China-based influence networks, as Chinese operatives embrace new tactics like setting up a front company, hiring freelance writers around the world and offering to recruit protesters, Ben Nimmo, Meta’s global threat intelligence lead, told reporters on Tuesday.

    While the networks are generally small and have struggled to build an audience, “they are experimenting with diverse tactics and that’s always something we want to keep an eye on,” Nimmo said. 

    The tactics are similar to those used by Russian operatives during the 2016 US presidential election campaign. Using fake personas and posing as representatives of US political and activist organizations, Russians successfully recruited unwitting Americans to take part in political stunts.

    Chinese operatives have in recent years “evolved their posture” from being concerned about being caught influencing US elections to seeing influence operations as another tool to project power, a US official told CNN.

    “We’re keeping a close eye” on the Chinese influence operations heading into the 2024 election, the official said.

    Indictments from special counsel Robert Mueller’s team in 2018 detailed how disinformation from Russia were designed to exacerbate existing divisions in the United States.

    Ahead of the 2022 US midterm election, FBI officials expressed concern that Chinese operatives appeared to be engaging in “Russian-style influence activities” that stoke American divisions. Russian and Chinese government-affiliated operatives and organizations both promoted misinformation about the integrity of American elections that originated in the US during the midterm election season, FBI officials have said. 

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Debt default could occur in early June, forecasters say, backing Yellen | CNN Politics

    Debt default could occur in early June, forecasters say, backing Yellen | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Two new analyses are backing Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen’s forecast that the nation could default on its debt – and unleash economic chaos – as soon as early June if Congress doesn’t act.

    The projections, which are roughly in line with those issued last week by Yellen and the Congressional Budget Office, add to the pressure on House Republicans and President Joe Biden, who may have only a few weeks to hammer out their vast differences over addressing the debt ceiling. Biden is meeting with congressional leaders Tuesday to work on a deal, the first movement in months.

    A weaker-than-expected tax season, spurred in part by disaster-related filing extensions for much of California and parts of Alabama and Georgia, has increased the odds that Treasury won’t have enough funds to pay the federal government’s bills in early June, according to an updated estimate released Tuesday by the Bipartisan Policy Center.

    “The coming weeks are critical for assessing the strength of government cash flows,” said Shai Akabas, the center’s director of economic policy. “If a solution is not reached before June, policymakers may be playing daily Russian roulette with the full faith and credit of the United States, risking financial disaster for their constituents and the country.”

    The so-called X-date, when the US could default, could arrive between early June and early August, according to the center. In February, it projected the default could take place during the summer or early fall.

    Meanwhile, Moody’s Analytics last week pegged the default date at June 8, significantly earlier than its prior projection of August 18. But the X-date could hit as soon as June 1 or as late as early August, according to that analysis.

    Cumulative income tax receipts are tracking more than 30% below collections a year ago, in part because of weaker capital gains revenue as a result of last year’s stock market declines, Moody’s said.

    Tax receipts are running $150 billion below government projections for fiscal year 2023, which began in October, according to a report issued Monday by the Penn Wharton Budget Model, an independent research organization. This is due mainly to a drop in capital gains income and weakening corporate profit margins.

    In Yellen’s letter to House Speaker Kevin McCarthy last week, she said the exact date of default is impossible to pinpoint since the amount of revenue the federal government collects and the amount it spends is variable. She noted it could come as early as June 1 but could be a number of weeks later.

    Even if the Treasury Department doesn’t completely run out of funds, it could be difficult for the agency to manage its payments and stay below the debt ceiling when it only has a tiny cash balance, Akabas said. How much revenue the agency collects in the next three weeks is critical to whether the nation will default next month.

    “Treasury is skating on very thin ice in the month of June. If it’s $10, $20, $30, $40 billion below what we anticipate, that means that they’re really going to be in a crunch situation,” he said of revenue.

    Unable to keep borrowing to pay the nation’s obligations, the Treasury Department has been using cash and “extraordinary measures” to avoid default since the US hit its $31.4 trillion debt ceiling in January.

    If government collections wind up being enough to keep Treasury’s coffers flush through early June, then it’s likely the government won’t default until later in the summer. The agency will get another injection of funds from second quarter estimated tax payments, which are due June 15, and from an extraordinary measure that becomes available at the end of that month.

    Investors are growing skittish about the debt ceiling impasse and a potential default.

    Last week, the Treasury Department sold $50 billion of four-week securities scheduled to mature on June 6 at a record 5.84%, the highest yield for any Treasury Department bill auction since 2000, Akabas noted.

    “Even now, the looming deadline is raising costs to the government and therefore, to all taxpayers,” he said.

    If the government was to default for the first time, it would trigger an economic meltdown in the US and send shock waves through the global financial system.

    If the default lasts for about a week, then close to 1 million jobs would be lost, including in the financial sector, which would be hard hit by the stock market declines, according to Moody’s. Also, the unemployment rate would jump to about 5% and the economy would contract by nearly half a percent.

    But if the impasse dragged on for six weeks, then more than 7 million jobs would be lost, the unemployment rate would soar above 8% and the economy would decline by more than 4%, according to Moody’s. The effects would still be felt a decade from now.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Republican governors call for withdrawal of proposed Title IX rule changes around transgender student athletes | CNN Politics

    Republican governors call for withdrawal of proposed Title IX rule changes around transgender student athletes | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    A group of 25 Republican governors called on the Biden administration Friday to withdraw or delay recently proposed rule changes to Title IX that could prevent states from enforcing anti-transgender sports bans.

    As several bills that aim to ban transgender students from participating on sports teams consistent with their gender identity make their way through GOP-led state legislatures across the country, the governors argued in a letter sent to Education Secretary Miguel Cardona that such bans ensure fairness.

    Led by Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves, the group – including the governors of Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia and Wyoming – slammed the administration’s proposal as “a blatant overreach.”

    In April, the Biden administration proposed a new federal rule change for Title IX that would prohibit policies that “categorically” ban transgender students from participating on sports teams consistent with their gender. However, according to a public notice from the department, the proposal would allow schools to enforce some restrictions in “competitive” environments.

    “Leaving aside the Department’s utter lack of authority to promulgate such a regulation, neither states nor schools should be subjected to such a fluid and uncertain standard,” the governors said in the letter. “Nor, most importantly, should the historic advancements and achievements of our sisters, mothers, and daughters be erased.”

    The governors went on to argue that the proposed changes create confusion for states and schools and claimed that the government was threatening to withhold federal funds to coerce schools to comply with a “completely subjective standard that is based on a highly politicized gender ideology.”

    CNN has reached out to the Department of Education for comment.

    Seventeen of the states signed onto the letter have enacted such bans with a few facing legal challenges, according to the Movement Advancement Project, a nonprofit think tank that advocates for issues including LGBTQ rights. This week, Missouri lawmakers passed a bill prohibiting students from competing in gendered athletic competitions that do not match their biological sex as listed on a birth certificate or government record, and the governor is expected to sign the measure.

    Proponents of such limitations in sports have argued that transgender women have a physical advantage over cisgender women and allowing them to compete would be unfair. However, a 2017 report in the journal Sports Medicine found “no direct or consistent research” on any such advantage.

    When the proposed rule changes were announced, advocates celebrated the new protections but called on the administration to eliminate the exemptions.

    “Every student deserves to be treated with dignity and respect. This includes transgender girls of all ages and in all sports, without exception,” said Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign, the largest LGBTQ advocacy group.

    “The new rule should be clarified to ensure that all transgender students should be presumed eligible to participate in sports consistent with their gender identity,” Robinson added in a statement at the time. “This moment we’re in is truly a crisis for transgender young people – and we’re calling on elected leaders at every level of government to fight harder for our kids.”

    Democratic governors of several states whose legislatures have pushed anti-trans sports bans were not listed among the letter’s signers, including from North Carolina, Kansas and Kentucky. According to the American Civil Liberties Union, more than 470 anti-LGBTQ bills have been introduced nationwide this legislative session.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Durham interviewed Hillary Clinton on alleged plan to tie Trump to Russia, found no ‘provable criminal offense’ | CNN Politics

    Durham interviewed Hillary Clinton on alleged plan to tie Trump to Russia, found no ‘provable criminal offense’ | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Special counsel John Durham’s report released Monday details his investigation of a purported effort by Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign to tie Donald Trump to Russia but which Durham concludes “did not, all things considered, amount to a provable criminal offense.”

    Durham reveals in a footnote that he interviewed the former secretary of State in May 2022 as part of his investigation.

    The special counsel was looking into whether any crimes occurred in the handling of an uncorroborated piece of US intelligence indicating Russia knew of a Clinton campaign plan to vilify her opponent, Trump, by tying him to the country.

    The 2016 intelligence got the attention of then-CIA Director John Brennan, who briefed the Obama White House and referred the issue to the FBI. During the Trump administration, Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe released some of Brennan’s notes about the intelligence used in his briefing of former President Barack Obama.

    Ratcliffe publicly said that the intelligence community never corroborated the Russian claims of a “Clinton Plan” to frame Trump, and didn’t know whether it was fabricated.

    In her interview with Durham’s investigators, Clinton expressed sympathy for Durham’s hunt. She calls it, “really sad,” adding, “I get it, you have to go down every rabbit hole.”

    Honig unsurprised by Durham findings because of this ‘revealing moment’

    But Durham believes the uncorroborated intelligence should have at least made the FBI question whether it was being used by a political opponent to pursue allegations against the Trump campaign, the report shows.

    Clinton called the intelligence that was consuming Durham’s time bogus, saying it “looked like Russian disinformation to me.”

    A spokesman for Clinton didn’t respond to a request for comment Monday.

    Durham concludes that it would be impossible to prosecute anyone for their handling of the intelligence. He said it “amounted to a significant intelligence failure,” but not a crime.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • DeSantis expected to enter 2024 presidential race next week | CNN Politics

    DeSantis expected to enter 2024 presidential race next week | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is expected to enter the 2024 GOP presidential race next week, two Republicans familiar with the matter told CNN, initiating his much-anticipated bid to wrestle the future of the party from former President Donald Trump.

    DeSantis will file paperwork declaring his candidacy next week with the Federal Election Commission, one Republican said, with a formal announcement expected the following week in his Florida hometown of Dunedin. DeSantis is likely to soft-launch the campaign as early as Wednesday to coincide with the filing of the paperwork, according to a Republican consultant close to the governor’s political team.

    However, another source cautioned that the planning remains a moving target, and DeSantis is known to surprise even his closest allies and advisers with last-minute changes. DeSantis, who often boasts that he runs an operation free of leaks, may be further motivated to throw out the script to vex the media outlets who have preempted his announcement, the source said.

    “With him, it’s always a possibility,” the source added.

    But the machinery for a launch is already in motion as dozens of his top fundraisers and donors have been summoned to South Florida under the assumption they will be asked to begin building up a war chest for a DeSantis presidential campaign. By officially submitting his paperwork, his supporters can begin soliciting donations on his behalf.

    About 100 hotel rooms have been reserved at the Four Seasons in Miami, which will host receptions for donors, briefings with DeSantis’ political team and sessions where attendees will dial for dollars, according to two sources familiar with the details. The goal is for each fundraiser to bring in between $100,000 and $150,000.

    A spokesman for DeSantis’ political operation did not respond to a request for comment.

    An announcement around the Memorial Day weekend is on the earlier side of the timeline that the governor’s political operation had targeted six months ago when it eyed a launch after Florida’s legislative session. This suggests DeSantis is responding to donors and supporters anxious to see him get in the race and more directly challenge Trump. Polling shows the former president remains firmly in the lead while DeSantis has lost some momentum during the belabored rollout of his expected campaign, which has included a book release and tour, a dozen appearances at local GOP fundraisers, an international trip, the creation of a super PAC, a donor retreat near Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort and a blitz through conservative media.

    Along the way, DeSantis has stumbled at times, drawing poor reviews for his oscillating takes on the Russia-Ukraine war, prolonging his clash with Disney into a second year and getting caught flat-footed as Trump unveiled endorsements from Florida Republicans in Congress just before the governor visited Washington to build support.

    However, DeSantis’ allies believe the trajectory of the race will change significantly once he is officially a candidate and responds to Trump’s broadsides and more vigorously shares his vision for the country.

    According to The New York Times, DeSantis told donors and supporters during a call Thursday that there were only three credible candidates in the race – himself, President Joe Biden and Trump – and that only he and Biden had a chance of winning the general election.

    DeSantis said on the call, which was organized by Never Back Down, a super PAC closely aligned with the governor, that data from swing states was “not great for the former president and probably insurmountable because people aren’t going to change their view of him,” the Times reported.

    DeSantis has spent the last couple of weeks tying up loose ends – rapidly signing dozens of bills that have reached his desk, meeting with donors in Tallahassee and South Florida, and shoring up endorsements to boost his launch. He spent Saturday in Iowa, where he appeared to one-up Trump, making an unannounced visit to a BBQ joint in Des Moines – minutes from where the former president had canceled a rally due to threat of weather. While in the state, DeSantis laid the framework for his case against Trump.

    “If we make 2024 a referendum on Joe Biden and his failures and we provide a positive alternative for the future of this country, Republicans will win across the board,” DeSantis told Iowa caucus voters in Sioux Center. “If we do not do that, if we get distracted, if we focus on the election in the past or on other side issues, then I think the Democrats are going to beat us again, and I think it will be very difficult to recover from that defeat.”

    On Friday, DeSantis will travel to another early nominating state, New Hampshire, to meet with state lawmakers – many of whom endorsed him earlier this week – for a policy round table, according to three sources familiar with the planning.

    Never Back Down has in recent weeks rolled out dozens of key endorsements for the governor in Iowa and New Hampshire. On Wednesday, the super PAC also announced endorsements from 99 Florida lawmakers – a show of force from the rank-and-file Republicans who helped push DeSantis’ agenda through the state legislature this spring.

    “Governor Ron DeSantis and the Florida legislature have worked together to achieve historic results and produce conservative victories for the people of Florida – turning the state into a beacon of freedom and the fastest growing state in the nation,” Never Back Down spokeswoman Erin Perrine said.

    Trump’s campaign dismissed the Florida endorsements as politically motivated, noting that DeSantis had not yet signed the state budget, for which he has line-item veto power over the pet projects of state lawmakers.

    “There are some brave legislators who have stood up to DeSantis’ Swamp-like behavior and resisted his intimidation tactics in order to do what is right for Florida and the country,” Trump spokesman Steven Cheung said. “Those who he can’t control – including almost the entirety of the Florida federal congressional delegation – have endorsed President Trump because he’s the only candidate who can beat Joe Biden and take back the White House.”

    This story has been updated with additional reporting.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Bipartisan group to introduce bill banning bump stocks | CNN Politics

    Bipartisan group to introduce bill banning bump stocks | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    A bipartisan group of lawmakers will introduce a bill on Thursday to ban the sale of bump stocks and other devices that enable semi-automatic firearms to increase their rate of fire and effectively operate as fully automatic weapons, the bill’s lead sponsor told CNN.

    Democratic Sens. Martin Heinrich and Catherine Cortez Masto, as well as Republican Sen. Susan Collins and Democratic Rep. Dina Titus, have all signed onto the bill. The proposed legislation comes after two federal appeals courts ruled to strike down a 2017 ban on bump stocks from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

    The bill faces an uphill battle on Capitol Hill, where lawmakers have conceded that the recent shootings across the US are not enough move substantial gun reform measures through a divided Congress.

    Heinrich, Collins, Cortez Masto and Titus, however, argue their bill has a shot of garnering more support – even among conservatives reluctant to take federal action – given the courts recent rulings and the fact that the initial ban on bump stocks was approved by former President Donald Trump.

    Following the October 1, 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas – when a gunman used a bump stock to fire more than 1,000 bullets into a crowd in just 10 minutes, killing 59 people – the ATF, under the Trump administration, initiated its ban on bump stocks.

    However in January 2023, the New-Orleans-based 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals blocked the ban, ruling that it would require an “act of Congress” to federally outlaw the use of such devices. The Biden administration later appealed the court’s decision and asked the Supreme Court to weigh in, saying it “threatens significant harm to public safety.”

    In April, the 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Cincinnati, similarly ruled that ATF went beyond its legal authority when it banned the devices by classifying them as “machine gun” parts.

    The lawmakers backing the new legislation, titled the BUMP Act, argue their bill is now necessary to enshrine a ban on bump stocks into federal law and prevent the Supreme Court from potentially striking down the 2017 law altogether.

    “In January, a federal court of appeals ruled that it would require an ‘act of Congress’ to federally outlaw bump stocks. Here it is,” Heinrich said in a statement to CNN. “Bump stocks exist to kill the most people in the shortest amount of time. There’s no good reason any person should have them in their possession. It’s past time we ban these deadly devices for good.”

    Both Heinrich and Collins were part of the Senate group that worked on the bipartisan gun safety bill that passed through Congress last year, and they hope they can apply a similar strategy to passing their latest measure. The senators have been in talks with a series of other lawmakers about potentially signing onto the bill and hope to add more cosponsors in the coming weeks.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Wagner chief rejects Russian Defense Ministry efforts to rein in his force | CNN

    Wagner chief rejects Russian Defense Ministry efforts to rein in his force | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The boss of the Russian private military company Wagner says he won’t sign contracts with Russia’s Defense Ministry, rejecting an attempt to bring his force in line.

    Yevgeny Prigozhin’s comments follow an announcement by the Russian Ministry of Defense Saturday that “volunteer units” and private military groups would be required to sign a contract with the ministry.

    The order – signed by Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu – said the move would “give the voluntary formations the necessary legal status,” and create “unified approaches” to their work.

    The order did not name the Wagner group but the move is seen a way of controlling the influential military force.

    Prigozhin – who has publicly feuded with defense chiefs – said the move did not apply to Wagner.

    “The orders and decrees issued by (Defense Minister Sergei) Shoigu apply to employees of the Ministry of Defense and military personnel. PMC ‘Wagner’ will not sign any contracts with Shoigu,” Prigozhin said in a Telegram post.

    Wagner, he said, would “absolutely” pursue the “the interests of the Russian Federation and the Supreme Commander-in-Chief.”

    Prigozhin and Wagner have played a prominent role in the Ukraine war. In May he said his troops had capture Bakhmut in a costly and largely symbolic gain for Russia.

    The Wagner chief has previously criticized Russia’s traditional military hierarchy, blaming Russian defense chiefs for “tens of thousands” of casualties and stating that divisions could end in a “revolution.”

    He also accused Russian military leaders “sit like fat cats” in “luxury offices,” while his fighters are “dying,” and later accused the Russian Defense Ministry of trying to sabotage his troops’ withdrawal from Bakhmut, claiming the ministry laid mines along the exit routes.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • ‘Maybe they don’t exist’: Republicans question legitimacy of alleged audio recordings of Biden bribery scheme | CNN Politics

    ‘Maybe they don’t exist’: Republicans question legitimacy of alleged audio recordings of Biden bribery scheme | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa claimed on the Senate floor earlier this week that the foreign national who allegedly bribed then-Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter has 17 audio recordings of their conversations but questioned whether those tapes even existed in an interview with CNN days later.

    “I don’t even know where they are. I just know they exist, because of what the report says. Now, maybe they don’t exist. But how will I know until the FBI tells us, are they showing us their work?” Grassley said Thursday.

    And Grassley is not the only Republican questioning the validity of the supposed tapes.

    House Oversight Chairman James Comer of Kentucky, who is overseeing the GOP investigation into the Biden family business dealings and has been quick to make the alleged bribery scheme a focus of his work, admitted to not knowing whether the tapes were legitimate.

    “We don’t know if they’re legit or not, but we know that the foreign national claims he has them,” Comer said of the alleged recordings during a Tuesday interview on Newsmax.

    House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, who also serves on the Oversight panel and has made the Department of Justice and FBI a target of his investigative efforts, told CNN of the tapes, “I have no reason to doubt anything Senator Grassley says, but I don’t know if they exist or not.”

    And Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson, who led his own investigation into the Biden family in 2020 and has long peddled the notion of wrongdoing, said in a separate Newsmax interview, “I’m not even aware that we verified those recordings exist.”

    The tapes are the latest unverified allegations Republicans have raised as they’ve launched investigations into the Biden family’s business dealings as well as the work of the FBI. While Republicans have used their subpoena power to go after the Biden family’s foreign business dealings, they have still not established a direct link to President Biden.

    Grassley first raised the existence of audio recordings after the FBI document that memorializes these allegations redacted them in the version shown to House Oversight Committee members.

    Prior to the full committee viewing the redacted document, Comer and the top Democrat on the panel, Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, had viewed a version of the document that included mention of the recordings, according to two sources familiar with their briefing.

    In a statement to CNN the chairman said, “The FBI’s Biden bribery record contains several investigative leads, but it is unclear what, if anything, the FBI has done to verify these allegations.”

    The FBI document at the heart of this debate, known as an FD-1023, summarizes multiple conversations a trusted FBI informant had with a foreign national alleging that an executive with the Ukrainian energy company Burisma offered both Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden bribes of $5 million.

    Former Attorney General Bill Barr, who was appointed by former President Donald Trump to serve during his administration, said when these bribery allegations came to light he tapped Pittsburgh US Attorney Scott Brady to look into the 1023 form and other claims. Barr has described this effort as a “screening, clearing house function” and said once the information was checked out the allegations were passed on to Delaware US Attorney David Weiss, who is overseeing an ongoing criminal investigation into Hunter Biden. Investigators were unable to corroborate the claims in the 1023.

    “That information was checked out, and it was determined that it was not likely to have been disinformation. It doesn’t say whether it’s true or not, but there was no sign there was disinformation. And so it was provided to the ongoing investigation in Delaware to follow up on and check out,” Barr said on Fox last week.

    Acting assistant director for the FBI’s office of congressional affairs Christopher Dunham has explained in previous correspondence with Congress that an FD-1023 form is “used by FBI agents to record unverified reporting from a confidential human source,” and noted that there are strict Justice Department guidelines about when that information can be provided outside of the FBI.

    Comer subpoenaed the document last month, and House Republicans have railed against the FBI for continuing to keep an unclassified document under close hold.

    “Congress still lacks a full and complete picture with respect to what that document really says. That’s why it’s important that the document be made public without unnecessary redactions for the American people to see,” Grassley said on the floor earlier this week.

    House Republicans were poised to hold FBI Director Christopher Wray in contempt of Congress earlier this month for his refusal to turn over the document, but a last-minute deal between Comer and Wray that included allowing the full committee to view the form halted the contempt proceedings. They are still publicly clamoring for the FBI to provide more detail about what steps were taken to investigate the claims in the document.

    Democrats meanwhile continue to dismiss the allegations. The White House continues to frame Republicans’ investigative efforts as politically motivated. White House spokesman Ian Sams said in a statement to CNN, “Everything in their so-called investigation seems to be mysteriously missing: informants, audio tapes, and most importantly of all – any credible evidence.”

    Raskin, who has painted the allegations as secondhand, told CNN, “It was thoroughly checked out by the Trump Justice Department, and they couldn’t find anything there. And if anybody would have an incentive to find something there it would have been the Trump Justice Department.”

    Another Democrat on the panel, Rep. Jared Moskowitz of Florida, accused Republicans of having alternative motives for surfacing the allegations in the first place.

    “What they’re trying to do is they’re trying to muddy the water because Trump is in so much trouble. They got to distract from that and pretend like, you know Joe Biden, which they say he’s sleepy and boring, is now somehow Tony Soprano,” he said.

    But Republicans who viewed the version of the FD-1023 form that redacted mention of the audio recordings are continuing to raise questions.

    One of those members, GOP Rep. Russell Fry of South Carolina, told CNN, “My assumption was that if they were going to redact things in that document that it would have been names and places and not actual corroborating evidence. So I think it’s unfortunate that the FBI decided to do that. And I look forward to seeing hopefully an unredacted copy of that 1023.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump should not be trusted with national secrets if charges prove true, his ex-Defense secretary says | CNN Politics

    Trump should not be trusted with national secrets if charges prove true, his ex-Defense secretary says | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Donald Trump’s onetime Defense secretary said Sunday that the former president should not be trusted with the nation’s secrets again should the allegations made in his federal indictment over his handling of classified documents prove true.

    “Based on his actions – again, if proven true – under the indictment by the special counsel, no,” Mark Esper told CNN’s Jake Tapper on “State of the Union.”

    “It’s just irresponsible action that places our service members at risk, places our nation security risk. You cannot have these documents floating around. They need to be secured,” he said.

    Trump has pleaded not guilty to 37 federal charges, including 31 counts of “willful retention of national defense information.” The former president denies any wrongdoing.

    Esper’s critical remarks about his onetime boss follow damning language by another high-profile Trump administration official – former Attorney General Bill Barr – who said last week that Trump was “toast” if even half of the details in his indictment were true.

    “The revelations are very troubling, disturbing,” Esper said Sunday when asked by Tapper if Trump’s actions put America’s national security at risk. “Yes, I do. If the allegations are true that it contained information about our nation’s security, about our vulnerabilities, about other items, it could be quite harmful to the nation. And, look, no one is above the law. And so I think this process needs to play out and people held to account, the president held to account.”

    Trump fired Esper as his Defense secretary in November 2020, shortly after Joe Biden was projected as the winner of the presidential election.

    Meanwhile, in a separate interview on “State of the Union,” House Intelligence Chairman Mike Turner said he was “not going to defend the behavior” listed in the indictment against Trump but the government would need to prove its case as the legal process moves forward.

    The Ohio Republican also said he had “grave concern” about the way documents were stored not just as it pertained to Trump but to Biden as well. A separate special counsel is leading an investigation into Obama-era classified documents found at Biden’s home and former private office.

    ‘Grave concern’: GOP House Intel Chair on classified Trump docs – full interview

    “The chair and ranking (member) of both the House Intel and Senate Intel (committees) have seen some of the documents, both from the Biden cache and the Trump documents itself. And I can tell you that, from having looked at both of those documents, I have grave concern about both of those type of documents being out in an unsecured place,” Turner said. “Both of them included details of national security issues that should not have been outside of a controlled environment.”

    Turner also previewed a closed-door meeting Tuesday his committee will be holding with John Durham, the special counsel who concluded in a report released last month that the FBI should never have launched a full investigation into connections between Trump’s campaign and Russia during the 2016 election.

    “We’re pulling him in to our committee to say, ‘OK, now that we have seen that there were abuses, that this was wrong, and that there are problems with (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) itself, what are the recommendations that you think we should pursue?’” Turner said.

    Durham is expected to testify publicly before the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday.

    His 300-plus page report states that the FBI used “raw, unanalyzed, and uncorroborated intelligence” to launch its Trump-Russia investigation but used a different standard when weighing concerns about alleged election interference regarding Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

    Durham, however, did not recommend any new charges against individuals or “wholesale changes” about how the FBI handles politically charged investigations, despite strongly criticizing the agency’s behavior.

    This report has been updated with additional details.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Hurd says he won’t sign GOP presidential debate pledge | CNN Politics

    Hurd says he won’t sign GOP presidential debate pledge | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Former Texas Rep. Will Hurd, who announced his 2024 Republican presidential campaign earlier Thursday with an anti-Donald Trump message, said he won’t sign the Republican National Committee’s pledge to back the party’s ultimate nominee in order to participate in primary debates.

    “I won’t be signing any kind of pledges, and I don’t think parties should be trying to rig who should be on a debate stage,” he told CNN’s Kaitlan Collins Thursday evening.

    “I am not in the business of lying to the American people in order to get a microphone, and I’m not going to support Donald Trump. And so I can’t honestly say I’m going to sign something even if he may or may not be the nominee,” he added.

    Hurd joins a crowded field looking to challenge Trump, the front-runner for the nomination, and he admitted it’ll be “difficult for a dark-horse candidate like me.”

    An undercover CIA officer before entering politics, Hurd has been outspoken in his criticism of Trump following his indictment on federal charges over alleged mishandling of classified documents. Asked if the former president, who has pleaded not guilty to all charges, betrayed the country, Hurd said, “100% he did.”

    Hurd told Collins that if the allegations are true, “It’s slapping the men and women who put themselves in harm’s way every single night in order to keep us safe.”

    Hurd launched his campaign earlier in the day calling for “common sense.”

    “This is a decision that my wife and I decided to do because we live in complicated times and we need common sense,” he said on CBS earlier Thursday morning.

    “There are a number of generational defining challenges that we’re faced with in the United States of America – everything from the Chinese government trying to surpass us as the global superpower, the fact that inflation is persistent at a time when technologies like artificial intelligence is going to upend every single industry, and our kids, their scores in math, science and reading are the lowest they’ve ever been in this century,” the former congressman said.

    “These are the issues we should be talking about. And to be frank, I’m pissed that we’re not talking about these things,” Hurd added in the CBS interview.

    Besides Trump, Republican presidential contenders also include Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, former Vice President Mike Pence, South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott, former United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley, former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson, former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum, tech entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, Miami Mayor Francis Suarez and conservative talk radio host Larry Elder.

    “Too many of these candidates in this race are afraid of Donald Trump,” Hurd said on CBS of the GOP primary field.

    Hurd added that, if elected to the White House, he would not pardon Trump should the former president be convicted, adding that he thought it was “insane” that other candidates were open to the idea.

    Ramaswamy has committed to pardoning Trump if he’s elected president. Haley, Suarez and Elder have also suggested they would be inclined to do so.

    Hurd was a rare Republican critic of Trump during his time in Congress from 2015 to 2021. Representing a swing district in Texas that covered the largest stretch of the US-Mexico border of any congressional seat, he opposed Trump’s border wall and argued it was less effective than other forms of border security.

    Hurd was one of four House Republicans in 2019 to vote in support of a resolution condemning Trump’s racist tweets targeting four Democratic congresswomen of color. He also authored a New York Times op-ed in 2018 arguing that Trump was being manipulated by Russian President Vladimir Putin. Despite his outspoken criticism, Hurd said in 2019 that he would vote for Trump the following year were he to be the GOP nominee.

    Hurd had been fueling speculation about a potential presidential run with trips to early-voting primary states in recent months. Hurd was in New Hampshire last week and told local station WMUR 9 he was evaluating whether his candidacy would have a path to the GOP nomination. In January, he spoke at the annual meeting of the New Hampshire Republican Party – the same event where Trump kicked off his 2024 campaigning. Hurd also visited Iowa for the Faith and Freedom Coalition’s spring event that included several other 2024 GOP hopefuls.

    Hurd was the only Black Republican in the House when he announced in 2019 that he would not seek reelection and instead pursue opportunities outside government to “solve problems at the nexus between technology and national security.” Hurd served in the CIA for almost a decade before coming to Congress. As a congressman, he served on the House Intelligence Committee, which is charged with oversight of the US intelligence community.

    Hurd first ran for Congress in 2010, losing to Quico Canseco in a runoff for the GOP nomination. Four years later, Hurd defeated Canseco, by then a former congressman, in another primary runoff before narrowly unseating Democratic Rep. Pete Gallego in the general election. He was narrowly reelected in 2016 and 2018, defeating Gallego and Democrat Gina Ortiz Jones, respectively.

    This story has been updated with Hurd’s interview on CNN.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez says justices are ‘destroying the legitimacy’ of the Supreme Court | CNN Politics

    Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez says justices are ‘destroying the legitimacy’ of the Supreme Court | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York said Sunday that some Supreme Court justices are “destroying the legitimacy of the court,” amid a lack of oversight, calling it “profoundly dangerous” for democracy.

    “We have a broad level of tools to deal with misconduct, overreach and abuse of power, and the Supreme Court has not been receiving the adequate oversight necessary in order to preserve their own legitimacy,” Ocasio-Cortez told CNN’s Dana Bash on “State of the Union.”

    The progressive lawmaker cited recent allegations against Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas over ethics improprieties. Her comments come as the court wrapped up its term with a slew of consequential rulings, including ending affirmative action for college admissions, clocking student loan debt relief and limiting LGBTQ protections.

    Alito did not disclose a luxury 2008 trip he took in which a hedge fund billionaire flew him on a private jet, even though the businessman would later repeatedly ask the Supreme Court to intervene on his behalf, ProPublica reported. In a highly unusual move, Alito preemptively disputed the nature of the report before it published last month.

    Thomas, meanwhile, has fielded sharp criticism after a separate ProPublica report detailed his relationship with GOP megadonor Harlan Crow, including luxury travel and other lavish gifts that Thomas received from Crow, as well as Crow’s purchase from Thomas and his family the home where the justice’s mother still lives.

    The real estate transaction and the bulk of the hospitality went unreported on Thomas’ annual financial disclosures, as did Crow’s reported payments for the tuition of a grandnephew of the justice.

    Thomas has defended the omission of the Crow-financed travel from his reports, saying he was advised at the time that he was not required to report the hospitality.

    “If Chief Justice Roberts will not come before the Congress for an investigation voluntarily, I believe we should be considering subpoenas, we should be considering investigations, we should pass much more binding and stringent ethics guidelines,” Ocasio-Cortez said Sunday.

    Senate Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, previously said his committee would mark up legislation on Supreme Court ethics after lawmakers return from their July 4 recess. Durbin had also asked Chief Justice John Roberts to appear before the Judiciary panel – a request that Roberts declined in April.

    Ocasio-Cortez on Sunday also called on the Biden administration to keep pursuing student loan cancellation after the Supreme Court blocked the president’s student loan forgiveness plan Friday, rejecting a program aimed at delivering up to $20,000 of relief to millions of borrowers.

    “People should not be incurring interest during this 12-month on-ramp period,” she said, referring to the administration’s proposal to help borrowers avoid penalties if they miss a payment during the first 12 months after student loan repayments resume in October.

    “So, I highly urge the administration to consider suspending those interest payments. Of course, we still believe in pursuing student loan cancellation and acting faster than that 12-month period wherever possible.”

    “We truly believe that the president – Congress has given the president this authority. The Supreme Court is far overreaching their authority. And I believe, frankly, that we really need to be having conversations about judicial review as a check on the courts as well,” Ocasio-Cortez said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Here is the CNN polling director’s advice for reading polls | CNN Politics

    Here is the CNN polling director’s advice for reading polls | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]

    A version of this story appeared in CNN’s What Matters newsletter. To get it in your inbox, sign up for free here.



    CNN
     — 

    Anyone who spends time following American politics is bound to encounter reports about polling.

    Done right, it can be valuable to figure out what’s motivating voters and which candidates are resonating. Done wrong, it’s misleading and counterproductive.

    That’s why for this newsletter I end up talking a lot to Jennifer Agiesta, CNN’s director of polling and election analytics, about which surveys meet CNN’s standards and how I can use them correctly.

    With the 2024 election just around the corner, it seemed like a good time to ask for her tips on what to look out for and avoid as the industry adapts to the changing ways Americans live and communicate. Our conversation, conducted by email, is below.

    WOLF: My impression is that polling seemed to miss the rise of Donald Trump in 2016 and then missed the power of Democrats at the national level in 2022. What’s the truth?

    AGIESTA: In both 2022 and 2016, I would say that polling – when you lump it all together – had a mixed track record. Methodologically sound polling – assessed separately from the whole slew of polls out there – did better.

    In 2022 especially, many polls actually had an excellent year: National generic ballot polling on the House of Representatives from high-quality pollsters found a close race with a slight Republican edge, which is exactly what happened, and in state polls, those that were methodologically sound had a great track record in competitive races.

    Our CNN state polls in five key Senate battlegrounds, for example, had an average error of less than a point when comparing our candidate estimates to the final vote tally, and across five contested gubernatorial races we had an average error of less than a point and a half.

    But there were quite a few partisan-tinged polls that tilted some of the poll averages and perhaps skewed the story of what the “polls” were showing.

    In 2016, you probably remember the big takeaway that the national polls were actually quite accurate and the bigger issues happened in state polling.

    Some of that was because more methodologically sound work was happening at the national level, and many state polls were not adjusting (“weighting” is the survey research term for this type of adjustment) polls for the education level of their respondents.

    Those with more formal education are more likely to take polls, and with an electorate newly divided by education in the Trump era, those polls that didn’t adjust for it tended to overrepresent those with college degrees who were less likely to back Donald Trump.

    You add to that evidence of late shifts in the race and extremely close contests and a good amount of that polling in key states did not paint an accurate picture (the polling industry’s assessment of the 2016 issues is here). Most state polling now does adjust for education.

    WOLF: How, generally, does CNN conduct its polling?

    AGIESTA: CNN has recently made changes to the way we conduct our polling to be more in line with the way people communicate today, using several different methodologies depending on the type of work we’re doing.

    A few times a year, we conduct surveys with 1,500 to 2,000 respondents who are sampled from a list of residential addresses in the United States. We initially contact those respondents through a mailing, which invites them to take the survey either online or by phone, depending on their preference and at their convenience, and then we follow up with an additional reminder mailing and some phone outreach to people in the sample who are members of groups that tend to be a bit harder to reach.

    These polls stay in the field for almost a month. This process allows us to get higher response rates and to obtain a methodologically sound estimate of some baseline political measures for which there aren’t independent, national benchmarks such as partisanship and ideology.

    We also conduct polling that samples from a panel of people who have signed up to take surveys, but who were initially recruited using scientific sampling methods, which helps to protect against some of the biases that can be present in panels where anyone can sign up.

    Our panel-based polls can be conducted online, by phone or by text message depending on how quickly we’re trying to field and how complicated the subject matter is.

    WOLF: What are the signs you look for in a good poll and what are some of the polling red flags?

    AGIESTA: It can be really hard for people who aren’t well-versed in survey methodology to tell the difference between polls that are worth their attention and those that are not.

    Pollsters are using many different methodologies to collect data, and there isn’t one right way to do a good poll.

    But there are a few key indicators to look for, with the first being transparency. If you can’t find information about the basics of a poll – who paid for it, what questions were asked (the full wording, not just the short description someone put in a graphic), how surveys were collected, how many people were surveyed, etc. – then chances are it’s not a very good poll.

    Most reputable pollsters will gladly share that kind of information, and it’s a pretty standard practice within the industry to do so.

    Second, consider the source, much as you would with any other piece of information.

    Gallup and Pew, for example, are known for their methodological expertise and long histories of independent, thoughtful research. Chances are pretty good that most anything they release is going to be based in solid science.

    Likewise, most academic survey centers and many pollsters from independent media are taking the right steps to be methodologically sound.

    But a pollster with no track record and fuzzy details on methodology, I’d probably pass.

    I would also say to take campaign polling with a grain of salt. Campaigns generally only release polls when it serves their interest, so I’d be wary of those numbers.

    In the same vein, market research that’s publicly released that seems to prove the need for a specific product or service – a mattress company releasing a poll that says Americans aren’t getting great sleep, for example – maybe don’t take that one too seriously either.

    WOLF: The coming primary season offers its own set of challenges because there are polls focused on specific early contest states like Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. Do you have any advice regarding these early contest polls in particular?

    AGIESTA: Polling primary electorates is notoriously difficult. It’s more difficult to identify likely voters, because they tend to be fairly low turnout contests, the rules on who can and can’t participate are different from state to state, and the quality of voter lists that pollsters may use for sampling varies by state.

    On top of that, as the election gets closer, the field of candidates and the contours of the race may change just before a contest happens – remember how the Democratic field shrank dramatically in the two days between the South Carolina primary and Super Tuesday in 2020 as an example.

    So when you’re looking at primary polling, it is very important to remember that polls are snapshots in time and not necessarily great predictors of future events.

    WOLF: Most of what general consumers like me want to see from a poll is which candidate is ahead. But I’ve heard you caution against focusing on the horse-race aspect of polling. Why?

    AGIESTA: There are several reasons for that caution.

    First is that polling of any kind has an error margin due to sampling. Even the most accurate poll has the possibility of some noise built into it because any sample will not be a perfect measure of the larger pool it’s drawn from.

    Because of that, any race that’s closer than something like a 5-point margin will mostly just look like a close race in polls.

    The value of polling in that situation is twofold: What it can tell you about why a race is close or what advantages each candidate has, and once you have multiple polls with similar methodologies, you can start to get a sense of how a race is trending.

    Polling is great for measuring which issues are more important to voters, how enthusiastic different segments of the electorate are, and what people think about the candidates in terms of their personal traits or job performance. Those measures can tell you a lot about the state of a race that you can’t get solely from a horse-race measure.

    WOLF: What is the best way to track who is ahead or behind in an election?

    AGIESTA: When you’re looking at trends over time, there are a few tactics that can help to make sense of disparate data.

    The best option is following the trend line within a single poll. If a pollster maintains the same methodology, the way a race moves or doesn’t in that poll’s trend line can tell you a lot about how it’s shaping up.

    That is sometimes hard to find though, as not every pollster conducts multiple surveys of the same race.

    Another good way to measure change over time is to lean on an average of polls, though, as we learned in 2022, those averages can vary pretty widely depending on how they’re handling things like multiple polls from the same pollster or whether they are including polls with a partisan lean.

    WOLF: I don’t have a landline and I don’t answer my phone for strange numbers. What makes us think polling is reaching a wide enough range of people?

    AGIESTA: Many polls these days are conducted using methods other than phone.

    Looking over the 13 different pollsters who released surveys that meet CNN’s standards for reporting in May or June on Joe Biden’s approval rating, only six conducted their surveys entirely by phone. And those phone pollsters are calling far more cellphones than landlines.

    The most important thing for any poll, regardless of how it’s conducted, is that it reaches people who are representative of those who are not answering the poll, and so far, it appears that right mix is achievable through multiple possible methodologies.

    WOLF: Are there specific groups of people that pollsters acknowledge they have trouble reaching? What is being done to fix it?

    AGIESTA: There are several demographic groups that pollsters know are frequently harder to reach than others – younger people, those with less formal education, Black and Hispanic Americans are among the most notable – and the prevailing theory of why 2020 election polling went awry is that some Republicans were less likely to participate in surveys than others.

    Pollsters have several techniques to combat this.

    Some pollsters who draw on online panels where they know the demographic and political traits of people who might participate in advance will account for this in their sampling plans.

    Phone pollsters can do something similar when they use a sample drawn from a voter list that has some of that information connected to a voter’s contact information.

    And if a pollster really wants to dig deep on a hard-to-reach group, they can conduct an oversample to intentionally reach a larger number of people from that group to improve the statistical power of their estimates within that group.

    WOLF: What is the next big challenge facing pollsters?

    AGIESTA: Well, the next election is always a good contender for the next big challenge for pollsters!

    But I think the big challenge looming over all of that is making sure that we’re finding the right ways to reach people and keep them engaged in research. The industry’s leaders are thinking through the right ways to use tools such as text messaging, social media and AI while still producing representative, replicable work.

    Elections are the attention-grabbing part of survey research, but pollsters measure attitudes and behaviors around so many parts of everyday life that our understanding of society would really suffer if survey methods fail to keep up with the way people communicate. I’m excited to see it continue to evolve.

    [ad_2]

    Source link