ReportWire

Tag: government organizations – us

  • As Democrats try to hold on in November, it’s Pete Buttigieg who’s in demand on the campaign trail | CNN Politics

    As Democrats try to hold on in November, it’s Pete Buttigieg who’s in demand on the campaign trail | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    A selfie crowd formed around Pete Buttigieg as he stood in line for coffee at the airport in Washington.

    One woman said she wasn’t going to stop because she wasn’t sure it was him. “It’s me,” the Transportation secretary replied.

    An older man explained to his wife, “That’s Pete BOOT-GUG,” missing the pronunciation and the emphasis.

    “He’s the President’s…” the man said, unable to come up with his job title.

    And yet, it’s Buttigieg – whose only political experience before his failed presidential bid was serving as mayor of South Bend, Indiana – who has become the most requested surrogate on the campaign trail for Democratic candidates in the midterms, people familiar with the requests tell CNN. He’s so in demand that he’s getting more requests than Vice President Kamala Harris, those sources tell CNN – but still fewer than President Joe Biden – as Democrats look to defend their narrow congressional majorities and win governor’s races in November.

    With invitations flowing into the White House and the Democratic National Committee, a relatively low-ranking Cabinet secretary’s staff has to choose between Democratic candidates trying to chase him down. There’s no precedent for this. But there’s also no precedent for the winner of the Iowa caucuses becoming Transportation secretary and proving more agile on camera than the vice president and Biden.

    Both Buttigieg and Harris are widely expected to run to succeed Biden – whether an open race emerges in 2024 or 2028 – and for Democrats looking ahead, the party’s preference for Buttigieg on the trail may be an early indicator of the future direction of the party overall.

    Two dozen operatives and candidates tell CNN they think Buttigieg is benefiting from the desire for a fresh face. Despite a steady uptick since the summer, Biden’s approval ratings are low, and Democrats believe that’s hurting Harris too, who has had her own political struggles – even as much of the administration’s agenda remains broadly popular.

    “It’s the association with being a Democrat – but not with Biden or Harris,” said one operative involved in multiple House races, explaining why campaigns have been gravitating to Buttigieg. “In the context of what people have to pick from, he’s very popular.”

    It’s not just about popularity. Some campaign operatives admit, with a note of embarrassment, they have been reluctant to invite Harris out of fear that would bring scrutiny from Republicans who monitor every word she says in ways Buttigieg rarely has to worry about, leaving candidates as collateral damage in an attack (fairly or unfairly) aimed at the first Black woman vice president.

    And some point to the basics of tight campaign budgets in the final stretch of the midterms: the vice president’s security footprint is large, and when she travels for politics, some of the costs for the Secret Service and local police protection have to be covered by the campaigns that are bringing her in. Even just a few hours on the ground can run tens of thousands of dollars and create traffic and other hold ups.

    Buttigieg, by contrast, can travel with just a member of the Protective Services Division squished beside him in coach on a commercial flight. Harris only meets people who’ve been wanded by the Secret Service and tested for Covid-19, while Buttigieg can go to political events making his way through the airport in the reverse of his campaign trail style – suit jacket on now, but no tie.

    White House political aides “recognize the dexterity and want to dispatch him to places that he uniquely can go and where Democrats don’t traditionally campaign,” said one person familiar with Buttigieg’s plans taking shape.

    That’s in contrast to the vice president’s team, which has been hoping to rebuild her standing by keeping her away from many tight races and focused largely on Black voters, among whom she remains very popular, and on women as she talks about abortion rights, arguing that she can have a large influence indirectly.

    Aides to a West Coast House Democrat in a very competitive race were debating who was going to be their one big ask in the final stretch. The President? The vice president? The first lady?

    “A senior staffer on our campaign says, ‘Throwing in two cents from our finance director – our San Francisco people have expressed that they don’t really care about POTUS, VPOTUS or the first lady. … They just really like Secretary Pete,’” recounted one of the aides.

    One Biden adviser highlighted an intentional deployment of the Cabinet over the final month in races where they think they’ll matter most, urging them to appear in their personal capacities to avoid violating the Hatch Act provisions on not mixing government work with campaigning. Only a few secretaries beyond Buttigieg, though, have generated much interest: Labor Secretary Marty Walsh, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, Interior Secretary Deb Haaland and Housing and Urban Development Secretary Marcia Fudge. Veterans Affairs Secretary Denis McDonough, rarely much of a political presence, will also hit the trail soon for a few events.

    But of those, Buttigieg is the only one who shows up in early presidential polls. He’s the one who was invited to address House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s retreat for top donors in Napa Valley in August. He’s the one who’s already headlined an event for Nevada’s Catherine Cortez Masto, seen as perhaps the most endangered Democrat in the Senate, and for Nan Whaley, the Democratic nominee for Ohio governor.

    Buttigieg, who came in a close second in the 2020 New Hampshire Democratic primary, was state party officials’ top choice to headline their big fall fundraising dinner, according to party officials, even before a poll that came out in late July showing him leading the field for a theoretical New Hampshire primary, essentially tied with Biden but edging out Harris by 11 percentage points.

    To the surprise of some in New Hampshire, the White House political office greenlit the invitation not long after. Tickets sold out.

    The morning of the New Hampshire speech, state Rep. Matt Wilhelm proudly tweeted a photo of a “BOOT EDGE EDGE” mug he had left over from when he’d endorsed and volunteered on his presidential campaign two years ago.

    “When I was asked by the party, ‘Who do we want as a surrogate?’ not only was I supportive of Pete, because yeah, I want him back here, but I think that he’s the kind of messenger that we want on the ground to get people fired up ahead of the midterms,” Wilhelm said. He remains very popular in the state, added Rep. Annie Kuster, who’d endorsed him in 2020 and had him headline a fundraiser for her campaign this year.

    The synth-horn notes of “High Hopes,” his old campaign anthem, played as Buttigieg took the stage. He hadn’t done a big political speech in two years. And while rattling off Biden administration accomplishments – like putting Ketanji Brown Jackson on the Supreme Court and signing bipartisan legislation providing health care for veterans exposed to toxic burn pits – he had some rusty moments working out new lines.

    “Most Americans don’t need culture wars every time there’s a gay Muppet or Black mermaid on TV – we need funding for our public schools,” he said in one riff.

    But it all built to a very Buttigieg centerpiece, intended to generate knowing smirks more than laughs, and metered out to invite the standing ovation he got.

    “Teddy Roosevelt had the square deal. FDR had the New Deal. So I’m going to say this body of defining achievements, this incredibly productive year, amounts to such a big deal that we ought to just call it The Big Deal,” Buttigieg said, putting that up against Republicans’ “big lie” that the 2020 election was stolen from former President Donald Trump.

    “And if, in the tradition of our President, you like to insert an extra adjective in there, feel free.”

    He ended with a passage that could one day drop right into a political convention speech, soaring past Biden or the infrastructure law or any more Trump mentions, to an aspirational line about building a “truly representative, fully inclusive, multi-racial, democratic republic like the one that has been under constant construction here on US soil for the last 200 years.”

    “This is somebody who really believes in the promise of democracy and in delivering results,” Sen. Maggie Hassan said after the final standing ovation for Buttigieg. “And we have seen him delivering results. And his pragmatic approach really means a lot to people here.” Hassan, who is facing a competitive reelection after winning her first term by only 1,017 votes, also had Buttigieg headline a fundraiser for her in Washington earlier this summer.

    Two weeks later, on another Saturday night, Harris was the featured speaker at the Texas Democrats’ big dinner in Austin. Every statewide Democratic candidate skipped, except the nominee for state railroad commissioner. Tickets were not as hard to get, though the state chair said it was their highest grossing event ever, and some took note that several state legislators from other parts of the state specifically flew in to be there.

    Harris’ stump speeches tend to be more grounded and direct, much like she is herself.

    She rooted her Austin speech in home turf stories about former Rep. Barbara Jordan and Lyndon Johnson, leading an enthusiastic call and response. She built up to a line she has often used, paraphrasing, she recalled, “the words of a great American leader, Coretta Scott King, who said: The struggle for justice is a never-ending process. And freedom is never really won; you earn it, and you win it in each and every generation.”

    Even though the White House political office lets Harris’ team pick her spots and write her speeches, she can’t stray far. When she talks up Biden’s record, she has to be subsumed to the President. She can’t put her own spin on it, aside from occasional moments, such as two days after Biden rolled out his marijuana policy changes without her in the frame, when she said, “Nobody should have to go to jail for smoking weed.”

    Harris discusses reproductive rights at the LBJ Presidential Library on October 8, 2022, in Austin, Texas.

    “There’s a house that Joe Biden built – it’s got a bunch of rooms, and as vice president you can choose which of the rooms you sit in. But you’ve got to be in Joe Biden’s house,” a Harris adviser said recently, trying to come up with a metaphor to describe the dynamics within the administration.

    That reality – in addition to the different political landscapes in the two states – helps explains the different responses Buttigieg and Harris received in New Hampshire and Texas.

    “The administration does not have a good brand in Texas – and that’s Joe Biden or Kamala Harris,” said one of the attendees at the Austin event who asked not to be named.

    By contrast, being part of the administration has benefits for Buttigieg – without some of the burdens Harris faces. Since he’s doling out federal dollars in his official capacity, politicians like to be seen with him. At the dinner in New Hampshire, nearly every speaker made a joke about how they hoped he’d come back with another big check for an infrastructure project.

    This past Wednesday in South Carolina, House Majority Whip Rep. Jim Clyburn – a key Biden supporter, and a promoter of Harris – spent the day with the secretary, going around with him to multiple events.

    But he said he had been eager to have Harris appear at the South Carolina Democratic Party dinner in June, and noted that she was in the critical early primary state again at his alma mater just a few weeks ago.

    “When you’re bringing her in, there’s a cost factor that goes far beyond what most Democratic Party folks can afford,” Clyburn said, not the expense of Air Force 2. “When we were bringing her to South Carolina, it was a real big problem. In fact, yours truly had to step up to help the party be able to afford it.”

    That speech, to an enthusiastic room in Columbia, was warmly received. Clyburn called the money he’d kicked in from his own campaign account “money well spent.”

    Buttigieg is both self-aware enough to know that any move suggesting presidential thinking would almost certainly leak and self-confident enough to believe he doesn’t need to start laying the groundwork for a campaign now.

    People in Buttigieg’s orbit and the secretary himself try to downplay any presidential speculation, and any suggestion of tension between the once and possible future rivals. People in Harris’ orbit say that they don’t spend much time thinking about the Transportation secretary, but when they do, they’re often left feeling he gets a pass on moves that for her would be seen as machinations.

    “The future is Joe Biden is going to run for reelection in 2024 – so what’s the point of thinking beyond that?” said one Buttigieg adviser.

    In the airport coffee line, though, a woman shrugged as her husband tried to explain who Buttigieg was after mispronouncing his name.

    “I would not have known him if he bought my coffee,” she said.

    That’s the downside for Buttigieg. Not far away, a stand was selling Harris bobbleheads and a T-shirt with her face on it.

    CLARIFICATION: This story has been updated to more accurately reflect the demand for tickets for Harris’ Austin event, which was the highest grossing event ever for the state party, according to its chair.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • January 6 committee member says panel will ask former Secret Service agent to testify again | CNN Politics

    January 6 committee member says panel will ask former Secret Service agent to testify again | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    Rep. Zoe Lofgren, a member of the House select committee investigating the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol, told CNN on Sunday the panel will ask former Secret Service Assistant Director Tony Ornato to testify again.

    “We’re in a position in the very near future to call the witnesses from the Secret Service back in for a few additional questions,” the California Democrat told CNN’s Pamela Brown on “CNN Newsroom,” explaining that the panel had wanted to “get through all the documentary evidence … over a million documents,” which they’ve now done.

    The House select committee has made clear it believes Ornato was a central figure who could provide valuable information about former President Donald Trump’s movements and intentions leading up to and on January 6.

    Not only did Ornato once run Trump’s detail, but he also made the unprecedented move of joining White House staff as the deputy chief of staff in December 2019 on a temporary assignment and eventually returned to the Secret Service to run its training program.

    To this point, Ornato has met with the panel on two occasions – in January and March – as part of its investigation.

    It’s not clear whether Ornato will end up testifying related to the claims from Cassidy Hutchinson, an aide to former Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows. Hutchinson specifically testified that Ornato had told her about Trump lashing out in anger and lunging at a member of his protective detail as he demanded to be taken to the Capitol on January 6.

    Asked Sunday who else from the Secret Service would be called back to testify, Lofgren also mentioned the head of Trump’s Secret Service detail, Robert Engel, “and a few others,” but did not specify whom.

    “We want to make sure that we’re getting the straight story. Some of the testimony received doesn’t seem to align with some of the documents, so we have a need to understand that better from them,” she said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Democratic Senate nominees hold cash edge in fall home stretch but face GOP advertising onslaught | CNN Politics

    Democratic Senate nominees hold cash edge in fall home stretch but face GOP advertising onslaught | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Seven Democrats in the 10 most competitive Senate races started this month and the home stretch to Election Day with bigger cash stockpiles than their Republican rivals, newly filed campaign finance reports show.

    But even with that financial edge, Democrats face a withering advertising assault in the final weeks of the campaign from deep-pocketed outside groups.

    The stakes are enormous for both political parties: Control of the Senate – along with the ability to shape federal policy for the remainder of President Joe Biden’s first term – hinges on the results in just a handful of states.

    The Senate Leadership Fund, a super PAC aligned with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, led GOP outside groups in fundraising, taking in $111 million during the three-month period ending September 30, the new filings show. That figure rivaled its haul during the first 18 months of this election cycle as some of the GOP’s biggest donors stepped up their giving.

    “SLF is steadily closing the gap in the fight to retake the Senate majority, and our donors are fired up about slamming the brakes on Joe Biden’s disastrous left-wing agenda,” group president Steve Law said in a statement.

    In all, the fund has spent more than $200 million on advertising this cycle, including ads that have already aired and reservations booked for the final weeks of the election, according to a CNN review of data compiled by AdImpact.

    The McConnell-aligned group “has really been a life raft for Republican Senate candidates across the board that have struggled to fundraise in any great amount,” said Jacob Rubashkin, an analyst with the nonpartisan political handicapper Inside Elections with Nathan L. Gonzales. “What we see in state after state after state is the advertising burden being borne by SLF and outside groups.”

    Here are more takeaways from the third-quarter fundraising reports filed with the Federal Election Commission:

    The reports, which were due Saturday night, show individual Democratic Senate contenders outraising their Republican rivals in a slew of competitive races – including marquee contests in Georgia, Arizona, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

    Democrats in all four of those states – Sens. Raphael Warnock of Georgia and Mark Kelly of Arizona; John Fetterman of Pennsylvania; and Mandela Barnes of Wisconsin – each collected more than $20 million during the quarter. That was a milestone no Republican Senate hopeful in a competitive race was able to match.

    Warnock, Kelly and Fetterman all ended September with more cash on hand than their GOP opponents. Four other states on CNN’s most recent list of the 10 Senate seats most likely to flip also saw the Democratic nominees finish with a bigger bank balance on September 30: Sens. Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada, Michael Bennet of Colorado and Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire, and North Carolina hopeful Cheri Beasley.

    Warnock, in pursuit of a full six-year term after winning a special election last year, brought in $26.4 million during the June-to-September fundraising period, to lead all Senate candidate fundraising. His haul is more than double the nearly $11.7 million raised by his Republican rival, Herschel Walker.

    Those figures, however, don’t reflect fundraising since a recent spate of developments in the Georgia contest – including a contentious debate Friday night in Savannah.

    National Republicans have rallied to Walker’s side in recent weeks, following news reports that the Republican paid for a woman’s abortion in 2009 and then asked her to terminate a second pregnancy two years later.

    Walker, who said in May that he supported a full ban on abortions, with no exceptions, has called the allegations “a lie.” CNN has not independently confirmed the woman’s allegations.

    In a statement, Walker’s aides said the campaign bought in more than $450,000 online in a single day recently – as prominent Republicans, including Florida Sen. Rick Scott, who helms the Senate GOP campaign arm – joined him on the stump in an effort to quell the controversy.

    Although Warnock has used his sizable war chest to hammer Walker on the airwaves, a CNN review of advertising buys from October 1 through Election Day tracked by AdImpact shows outside groups, led by the Senate Leadership Fund, dominating the advertising in the Peach State.

    SLF’s advertising tops the list at $25.2 million with Georgia Honor, a Democratic super PAC, in second place at just shy of $21.7 million.

    Top donors to the Senate Leadership Fund during the third quarter included some of the biggest financial backers in Republican politics. Leading the list at $10 million apiece were three billionaires: Miriam Adelson, a physician and widow of the late casino magnate Sheldon Adelson; Ken Griffin, founder of the Citadel hedge fund; and Blackstone CEO Stephen Schwarzman. The Senate Leadership Fund’s haul also included $20 million from its nonprofit arm, One Nation, which does not disclose its donors’ identities.

    SLF entered October sitting atop $85.2 million in cash reserves.

    (The Senate Majority PAC, the leading super PAC working to elect Democrats to the chamber, is slated to file a report detailing its most recent fundraising later this week. The group reported more than $65.7 million remaining in the bank at the end of August.)

    Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly is seeking a full six-year term.

    Kelly, the Democratic incumbent in Arizona, raised $23 million in the June-to-September window, more than four times the contributions collected by his Republican challenger, Blake Masters, the new filings show.

    And Kelly, who is seeking a full six-year term, started October with more than $13 million remaining in the bank – far surpassing the $2.8 million available to Masters.

    National Republican leaders have exhorted billionaire investor Peter Thiel to put more money into the Arizona race to rescue Masters, his former employee. (An initial $15 million Thiel sent to a pro-Masters super PAC, Saving Arizona, helped the first-time candidate survive a competitive primary earlier this year.)

    Saturday’s filings show Saving Arizona raised a little more than $4.4 million during the third quarter with no additional investment during that period from Thiel.

    Among the biggest donors in the three-month period: Shipping and packaging magnate Richard Uihlein, who gave $3 million. And Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss, the billionaire twin investors perhaps best known for their legal battle with Mark Zuckerberg over who invented Facebook, donated $500,000 apiece to the super PAC last month.

    Republican Tiffany Smiley is challenging Democratic Sen. Patty Murray in Washington state.

    A notable exception to Democrats’ fundraising dominance: Washington state, where first-time candidate Republican Tiffany Smiley raised $6 million to surpass the $3.6 million brought in by five-term Sen. Patty Murray during the three-month period.

    National Republican groups have not invested so far in trying to topple Murray, the No. 3 Senate Democrat, in this traditionally blue state. (Inside Elections rates the contest as Likely Democratic.)

    But Smiley’s late-breaking fundraising success has put a spotlight on the 39-year-old former triage nurse, who is waging her first political campaign.

    Murray entered October with the larger stockpile of available cash – roughly $3.8 million to Smiley’s nearly $2.5 million.

    Meanwhile, in Ohio – a former bellwether state that has swung to Republicans in recent cycles – Democratic Rep. Tim Ryan raised a substantial $17.2 million, with Republican J.D. Vance lagging far behind in their closer-than-expected contest.

    Ryan, who has plowed millions of his campaign dollars into advertising, started October with just $1.4 million remaining in the bank to Vance’s nearly $3.4 million. Ryan, a 10-term congressman, has implored national Democratic organizations to help, but they have prioritized other top-tier contests in states such as Pennsylvania, Georgia, Nevada and North Carolina.

    SLF and, more recently, a super PAC aligned with former President Donald Trump, have hit the airwaves on Vance’s behalf in an effort to keep this open Senate seat in the Republican column.

    The current officeholder, GOP Sen. Rob Portman, is retiring.

    In the 19 House races that Inside Elections currently rates as Toss-ups, the Democratic nominees outraised their GOP opponents during the third quarter, the weekend filings show. And a dozen entered October with more cash in the bank than their Republican rivals.

    In one of the mostly closely watched contests, Alaska’s newly minted congresswoman, Democratic Rep. Mary Peltola, collected nearly $4 million during the quarter – including $2.3 million raised after she won an August special election to fill the remainder of the late GOP Rep. Don Young’s term.

    Peltola is on the ballot again in November as she seeks a full, two-year term for the state’s lone House seat, and she started October with more than $2.2 million in available cash. That far exceeds the cash balances of her Republican rivals, Nick Begich and former Gov. Sarah Palin.

    Begich reported more than $547,000 in available cash and Palin, the 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee, had nearly $195,000.

    The three, along with a Libertarian candidate, will face off next month in a general election that will be decided by the state’s new ranked-choice voting system.

    As in Senate contests, Republican outside groups have been major players in the battle to flip the House.

    The Congressional Leadership Fund, the main super PAC focused on GOP efforts to recapture the House majority, recently announced that the group and its nonprofit arm had raised a combined $73 million in the third quarter, bringing its cycle total to $220 million.

    It has spent nearly $160 million on advertising, including future reservations for the final weeks of the campaign.

    This story has been updated with additional third-quarter fundraising information.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • January 6 panel asks Secret Service for information about contacts between agents and Oath Keeper members | CNN Politics

    January 6 panel asks Secret Service for information about contacts between agents and Oath Keeper members | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Investigators with the House select committee probing the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol have asked the United States Secret Service for information about contacts between its agents and members of the far-right Oath Keepers group.

    The inquiry comes after it was revealed during court testimony that members of the group, including leader Stewart Rhodes, claimed to be in contact with Secret Service agents prior to rallies for former President Donald Trump after the 2020 election. Members of the Oath Keepers are currently on trial for charges relating to the Capitol attack, including seditious conspiracy.

    Secret Service spokesman Anthony Guglielmi confirmed to CNN that the January 6 panel had reached out to the agency and “a verbal briefing was provided to the staff.”

    NBC News first reported the inquiry.

    Guglielmi told CNN the Secret Service would provide records of contact between the Oath Keepers and Secret Service agents.

    Members of the Oath Keepers occasionally reached out to the Secret Service prior to January 6, 2021, with questions about permissible items for rallies, an official with the agency told CNN earlier this week. Further, when agents learned the group planned to attend events, agents reached out and met with members.

    While it’s not uncommon for law enforcement agents to maintain contacts with groups that are of investigative interest, the relationship with the Oath Keepers has come under increased scrutiny during the trial.

    John Zimmerman, a former North Carolina leader of the Oath Keepers, testified earlier this month that to prepare for the rally, Rhodes said he was in contact with a member of the Secret Service who offered advice on what weapons were allowed near the rally. Rhodes also repeatedly represented he was in touch with an agent, said Zimmerman, who noted that he had not heard the entire conversation.

    CNN has asked the Secret Service for dates of contacts and names of Oath Keepers contacted, as well as whether the contacts were documented at the time.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Elon Musk reverses course, says SpaceX will keep funding Ukraine Starlink service for free | CNN Business

    Elon Musk reverses course, says SpaceX will keep funding Ukraine Starlink service for free | CNN Business

    [ad_1]

    Sign up for CNN’s Wonder Theory science newsletter. Explore the universe with news on fascinating discoveries, scientific advancements and more.



    CNN
     — 

    US billionaire Elon Musk tweeted on Saturday that SpaceX will continue funding Starlink internet service in war-torn Ukraine, apparently reversing course after SpaceX asked the United States military to pick up the tab.

    SpaceX’s Starlink satellite internet services have been a vital source of communication for the country’s military during the war with Russia, but as CNN exclusively reported earlier this week, SpaceX warned the Pentagon that it may stop funding the service in Ukraine unless the US military kicks in tens of millions of dollars per month, according to documents obtained by CNN.

    The letter also requested that the Pentagon take over funding for Ukraine’s government and military use of Starlink, which SpaceX claims would cost more than $120 million for the rest of the year and could cost close to $400 million for the next 12 months. The report elicited a torrent of tweets from social media users both defending and criticizing the move.

    A tweet from Musk’s verified account posted Saturday said, “The hell with it … even though Starlink is still losing money & other companies are getting billions of taxpayer $, we’ll just keep funding Ukraine govt for free.”

    Since they first started arriving in Ukraine last spring, the Starlink satellite internet terminals made by Musk’s SpaceX have allowed Ukraine’s military to fight and stay connected even as cellular phone and internet networks have been destroyed in its war with Russia.

    A Pentagon spokesperson said Friday that it had been in communication with SpaceX but did not say whether it was over the funding of the Starlink satellite communication product.

    In response Saturday to a follower who replied to Musk’s tweet, “No good deed goes unpunished,” Musk said, “Even so, we should still do good deeds.”

    Musk on Friday had doubled down on SpaceX’s request to the Pentagon in a series of tweets.

    “SpaceX is not asking to recoup past expenses, but also cannot fund the existing system indefinitely *and* send several thousand more terminals that have data usage up to 100X greater than typical households. This is unreasonable,” read one post from Musk’s verified account.

    He also said that in asking the Pentagon to pick up the bill for Starlink in Ukraine, he was following the advice of a Ukrainian diplomat who responded to Musk’s Ukraine peace plan earlier this month, before the letter was sent to the Pentagon, with: “F*** off.”

    Ukraine’s ambassador to Germany, Andrij Melnyk, responded earlier this month to Musk’s claimed peace plan for Russia’s Ukraine war by saying: “F*** off is my very diplomatic reply to you @elonmusk.”

    SpaceX’s suggestion that it would stop funding Starlink also came amid rising concern in Ukraine over Musk’s allegiance. Musk recently tweeted a controversial peace plan that would have Ukraine give up Crimea and control over the eastern Luhansk and Donetsk regions.

    After Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky raised the question of who Musk sides with, he responded that he “still very much support[s] Ukraine” but fears “massive escalation.”

    One Ukrainian official, Mykhailo Podolyak, an adviser to Zelensky, appeared to extend an olive branch in a tweet posted Friday, writing, “Let’s be honest. Like it or not, @elonmusk helped us survive the most critical moments of war.”

    “Business has the right to its own strategies,” Podolyak’s tweet read. “(We) will find a solution to keep #Starlink working. We expect that the company will provide stable connection till the end of negotiations.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Workers at second Apple store vote to join union | CNN Business

    Workers at second Apple store vote to join union | CNN Business

    [ad_1]



    CNN Business
     — 

    Apple workers in Oklahoma City have voted to form the second-ever labor union at one of the company’s US stores, in the latest sign that organizing efforts are gaining traction inside and outside the tech and retail industries.

    In a preliminary tally by the National Labor Relations Board on Friday evening, 56 workers, or 64% of those casting ballots at the Penn Square Mall Apple store, voted to be represented the Communication Workers of America, and 32 voted against it. Turnout was strong, with 88 of a potential 95 workers participating in the vote.

    The union victory comes four months after Apple store workers in Towson, Maryland, made history by voting to form Apple’s first US unionized location. In late June, the NLRB officially certified the union election win.

    Workers at both locations have said they’re looking to unionize in an effort to have more of a say in how their stores are run. Some also said they were inspired by union pushes this year at Amazon and Starbucks.

    Apple did not directly address the vote results when asked for comment Friday.

    “We believe the open, direct and collaborative relationship we have with our valued team members is the best way to provide an excellent experience for our customers, and for our teams,” said the company’s statement. “We’re proud to provide our team members with strong compensation and exceptional benefits. Since 2018, we’ve increased our starting rates in the US by 45% and we’ve made many significant enhancements to our industry-leading benefits.”

    The vote was roughly in line with what employees leading the organizing effort were expecting, according to Leigha Briscoe, one of the members of the organizing committee at the store.

    “We felt like we had the majority support, and as long a people got out and cast their vote, we would win,” Briscoe told CNN Business late Friday after the vote tally.

    Briscoe has been an employee at the store for six years. She said the employees who wanted to form a union approached CWA, rather than CWA trying to organize the store on its own.

    Briscoe, 28, is typical of many of the younger workers leading successful union organizing drives nationwide in the wake of the pandemic. Many of the successful efforts, such as at an Amazon warehouse in Staten Island, New York, and at more than 200 Starbucks stores nationwide, have been led by workers in their twenties or early thirties.

    Between January and July of this year there were 826 union elections, up 45% from the number held in the same period of 2021, according to a CNN analysis of data from the NLRB. And the 70% success rate by unions in those votes is far better than the 42% success rate in the first seven months of 2021.

    But only 41,000 potential union members were eligible to vote in the 2022 elections. Even if the unions had won all those votes — NLRB data don’t break down how many workers worked at each company holding a vote — it would be a small fraction of the more than 100 million workers at US businesses who don’t belong to a union, according to Labor Department statistics.

    The retail sector has a far lower rate of unionization than some other industries. Labor Department data show only 4.4% of retail workers nationwide are members of unions, compared to 6.1% of employees working at businesses overall.

    When including government employees, only 10.3% of workers nationwide are union members, roughly half the rate of union membership in 1983, the first year it was tracked by the Labor Department, when union membership made up 20.1% of the nation’s workers.

    Oklahoma is not particularly fertile ground for union efforts. The Labor Department data show only 5.6% of workers overall are union members, barely more than half of the 10.3% national rate.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Five takeaways from the Georgia Senate debate | CNN Politics

    Five takeaways from the Georgia Senate debate | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    When Democratic Sen. Raphael Warnock and Republican Herschel Walker met to debate in the already contentious Georgia Senate race, all the focus was on how personal allegations against Walker would roil the first – and likely only – debate in the campaign.

    The allegations that Walker paid for a woman to terminate her pregnancy and then, two years later, encouraged the same woman to have the procedure a second time, however, were just a blip in the hour-long contest, which instead centered on Warnock’s ties to President Joe Biden, the vast differences between the two candidates on abortion and even, however briefly, Walker’s use of what appeared to be a sheriff’s badge.

    Walker continued to deny the allegations about him – calling them “a lie” – and Warnock, as he has on the campaign trail, did not engage on the controversy, instead choosing to question his Republican opponent’s relationship to the truth.

    “We will see time and time again, as we have already seen, that my opponent has a problem with the truth,” Warnock said. “And just because he says something doesn’t mean it’s true.”

    For Walker, the debate was as much about touting his own candidacy as it was about tying Warnock to Biden, who was invoked early and often. His effort, in the closing moments, to assuage fence-sitting voters about his readiness to serve also included a jab at Warnock and Biden.

    “For those of you who are concerned about voting for me, a non-politician, I want you to think about the damage politicians like Joe Biden and Raphael Warnock have done to this country,” Walker said.

    Here are five takeaways from Friday’s debate:

    Biden wasn’t on the stage Friday night, but Walker tried repeatedly to convince viewers that the Democratic President was ostensibly there with his Democratic opponent.

    From the outset of the event, Walker repeatedly invoked Biden, hoping to tie his Democratic opponent to the President’s low approval ratings.

    “This race isn’t about me. It is about what Raphael Warnock and Joe Biden have done to you and your family,” Walker said at the top of the debate.

    Later, when pressed on voter fraud in the 2020 election, he added, “Did President Biden win? President Biden won, and Sen. Warnock won. That’s the reason I decided to run.”

    He then synthesized his point: “I am running because he and Joe Biden are the same.”

    Warnock did little to distance himself from Biden, even at times touting the legislation he passed with the President’s help. But during a question on foreign policy, he took the chance to note a specific time he stood up to the Biden administration.

    “I am glad we are standing up to Putin’s aggression and we have to continue to stand up, which is why I stood up to the Biden administration when it suggested we should close the Savanah Combat Readiness Training Center,” Warnock said. “I told the President that was the exact wrong thing to do at the exact wrong time. … We kept that training center open.”

    Walker went back to his message in response: “He didn’t stand up. He had laid down every time it came around.”

    “It is evident,” said a somewhat exasperated Warnock, “that he has a point that he tried to make time and time again.”

    Headed into the debate, the focus was on how Walker – and arguably less predictably, Warnock – would address the accusations that the Republican candidate allegedly paid for a woman to terminate her pregnancy and then, two years later, encouraged the same woman to have the procedure a second time.

    Walker did what he has done repeatedly as the allegations roiled an already contentious Senate race: Label the allegations a lie.

    “As I said, that is a lie,” Walker said in response to a question from the moderator. “I put it in a book, one thing about my life, I have been very transparent. Not like the senator, he has hid things.”

    Walker added: “I said that is a lie and I am not backing down. And we have Sen. Warnock, people that would do anything and say anything for this seat. But I am not going to back down.”

    CNN has not independently verified the allegations about Walker.

    Warnock, as he has done previously, did not address the allegations, instead choosing to let Walker fight them off without pushing them himself.

    Instead, the senator took a broad approach, focusing on Walker’s “problem with the truth” and less on the specific allegations.

    The candidates also clashed on abortion rights more generally, with Walker insisting he did not support a federal ban, in contrast to past statements, and pointing to the state’s restrictive “heartbeat” law. The law prohibits abortions as soon as early cardiac activity is detectable, which can be as early as six weeks, before many women know they are pregnant.

    “On abortion, I’m a Christian. I believe in life. Georgia is a state that respects life,” Walker said.

    The Georgia law makes exceptions for cases of rape or incest, pending a timely police report, and in some cases where the pregnant person’s health is at risk.

    Before the Supreme Court’s ruling overturning Roe v. Wade, state law had allowed abortions up to 20 weeks.

    Warnock, who supports abortion rights, repeated an argument he’s made on the trail: “A patient’s room is too narrow and small and cramped for a woman, her doctor and the US government. … I trust women more than I trust politicians.”

    Walker then shot back, invoking Warnock’s support for the Black Lives Matter movement against police brutality.

    “He told me Black lives matter… If Black lives matter, why are you not protecting those babies? And instead of aborting those babies, why aren’t you baptizing those babies?,” Walker said.

    Warnock, as he did throughout the debate, didn’t directly answer Walker’s provocation. Instead, he repeated his position.

    “There are enough politicians piling into the rooms of patients,” the senator said, “and I don’t plan to join them.”

    Georgia is one of 12 states not to expand Medicaid and currently has an estimated 1.5 million uninsured residents.

    Walker, when asked by the moderator if the federal government should step in to make sure everyone has access to health care, began a confusing non-response.

    “Well, right now, people have coverage for health care. It’s according to what type of coverage do you want. Because if you have an able-bodied job, you’re going to have health care,” he said. “But everyone else – have health care is the type of health care you’re going to get. And I think that is the problem.”

    Walker continued to say that Warnock wants people to “depend on the government,” while he wants “you to get off the government health care and get on the health care he’s got.”

    To note: Warnock, as a US Senator, is on a government health care plan.

    Walker also gave a puzzling response to Warnock’s attack on his opposition to federal legislation capping the price of insulin for people with diabetes.

    “I believe in reducing insulin, but at the same time, you have to eat right,” Walker said. “Unless you have eating right, insulin is doing you no good. So you have to get food prices down and you got to get gas prices down so they can go and get insulin.”

    Warnock responded by telling viewers who require the drug that Walker was, in effect, blaming them for their struggles accessing it.

    Warnock, on the subject of his pledge to close the Medicaid gap, was asked how he would pay for it.

    “This is not a theoretical issue for me,” he replied, invoking the story of a nurse in a trauma ward who lost coverage when she became sick and, as he put it, died “for lack of health care.”

    “Georgia needs to expand Medicaid,” Warnock continued. “It costs us more not to expand. What we’re doing right now is we’re subsidizing health care in other states” – a reference to the state’s refusal to accept federal funds that residents already pay into.

    The debate within the debate over Warnock’s support for police, in which the senator pointed to his support for legislation that backed smaller departments, was briefly derailed when Walker pulled out what appeared to be a police badge.

    The moderator quickly admonished Walker, reminding him that props were not allowed onstage.

    “You have a prop,” the surprised moderator said. “That is not allowed, sir.”

    Moments earlier, Warnock – in response to Walker’s claims that he has “called (police officers) names” and caused “morale” to plummet – said that his opponent “has a problem with the truth.”

    Warnock then hit Walker with a callback to a more than two-decade-old police report in which the Republican discussed exchanging gunfire with police and a subsequent false claim from Walker that he previously served in law enforcement.

    “One thing that I haven’t done is I haven’t pretended to be a police officer and I’ve never, ever threatened a shootout with police,” he said.

    Warnock also argued that his support for greater scrutiny of police didn’t undermine his support for law enforcement.

    “You can support police officers, as I’ve done, through the COPS program, through the invest-to-protect program, while at the same time, holding police officers, like all professions, accountable,” he said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Federal appeals court pauses Texas social media law’s enforcement amid looming Supreme Court petition | CNN Business

    Federal appeals court pauses Texas social media law’s enforcement amid looming Supreme Court petition | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN Business
     — 

    A federal appeals court has agreed to suspend enforcement of Texas’ social media law restricting content moderation, in the face of a looming request by tech industry groups for the Supreme Court to review the case.

    In an order on Wednesday, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals granted a stay of its earlier mandate that had paved the way for the Texas law, known as HB 20, to take effect.

    HB 20 aims to expose social media platforms including Meta, YouTube and Twitter to new private lawsuits, as well as suits by the state’s attorney general, over the companies’ decisions to remove or reduce the visibility of user content they deem objectionable.

    The law is viewed as a challenge to decades of First Amendment precedent, which holds the government may not compel private entities to host speech.

    In a filing leading up to Wednesday’s order, the technology groups challenging the Texas law said they planned to ask for the Supreme Court to rule on HB 20, and that Texas did not oppose the motion for a stay.

    The Supreme Court has already indicated it is open to regulating social media platforms, agreeing this month to hear two cases that could indirectly narrow the scope of the tech industry’s all-important liability shield, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

    Some justices, including conservatives Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, have explicitly cited the role and power of social media platforms as reasons the Court should step in.

    Last month, Florida’s attorney general called on the Supreme Court to review a social media law in that state that is similar to Texas’ legislation. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals had earlier blocked Florida’s law, saying it was likely unconstitutional.

    That finding created a split with the Fifth Circuit’s decision to uphold Texas’ law, making it even more likely for the Supreme Court to take up the matter.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Exclusive: Musk’s SpaceX says it can no longer pay for critical satellite services in Ukraine, asks Pentagon to pick up the tab | CNN Politics

    Exclusive: Musk’s SpaceX says it can no longer pay for critical satellite services in Ukraine, asks Pentagon to pick up the tab | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    Since they first started arriving in Ukraine last spring, the Starlink satellite internet terminals made by Elon Musk’s SpaceX have been a vital source of communication for Ukraine’s military, allowing it to fight and stay connected even as cellular phone and internet networks have been destroyed in its war with Russia.

    So far roughly 20,000 Starlink satellite units have been donated to Ukraine, with Musk tweeting on Friday the “operation has cost SpaceX $80 million and will exceed $100 million by the end of the year.”

    But those charitable contributions could be coming to an end, as SpaceX has warned the Pentagon that it may stop funding the service in Ukraine unless the US military kicks in tens of millions of dollars per month.

    Documents obtained by CNN show that last month Musk’s SpaceX sent a letter to the Pentagon saying it can no longer continue to fund the Starlink service as it has. The letter also requested that the Pentagon take over funding for Ukraine’s government and military use of Starlink, which SpaceX claims would cost more than $120 million for the rest of the year and could cost close to $400 million for the next 12 months.

    “We are not in a position to further donate terminals to Ukraine, or fund the existing terminals for an indefinite period of time,” SpaceX’s director of government sales wrote to the Pentagon in the September letter.

    Among the SpaceX documents sent to the Pentagon and seen by CNN is a previously unreported direct request made to Musk in July by the Ukrainian military’s commanding general, General Valerii Zaluzhniy, for almost 8,000 more Starlink terminals.

    In a separate cover letter to the Pentagon, an outside consultant working for SpaceX wrote, “SpaceX faces terribly difficult decisions here. I do not think they have the financial ability to provide any additional terminals or service as requested by General Zaluzhniy.”

    The documents, which have not been previously reported, provide a rare breakdown of SpaceX’s own internal numbers on Starlink, detailing the costs and payments associated with the thousands of terminals in Ukraine. They also shed new light on behind-the-scenes negotiations that have provided millions of dollars in communications hardware and services to Ukraine at little cost to Kyiv.

    The letters come amid recent reports of wide-ranging Starlink outages as Ukrainian troops attempt to retake ground occupied by Russia in the eastern and southern parts of the country.

    Sources familiar with the outages said they suddenly affected the entire frontline as it stood on September 30. “That has affected every effort of the Ukrainians to push past that front,” said one person familiar with the outages who spoke to CNN on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive conversations. “Starlink is the main way units on the battlefield have to communicate.”

    There was no warning to Ukrainian forces, a second person said, adding that now when Ukraine liberates an area a request has to be made for Starlink services to be turned on.

    The Financial Times first reported the outages which resulted in a “catastrophic” loss of communication, a senior Ukrainian official said. In a tweet responding to the article, Musk didn’t dispute the outage, saying that what is happening on the battlefield is classified.

    SpaceX’s suggestion it will stop funding Starlink also comes amid rising concern in Ukraine over Musk’s allegiance. Musk recently tweeted a controversial peace plan that would have Ukraine give up Crimea and control over the eastern Luhansk and Donetsk regions.

    After Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky raised the question of who Musk sides with, he responded that he “still very much support[s] Ukraine” but fears “massive escalation.”

    Musk also argued privately last month that Ukraine doesn’t want peace negotiations right now and that if they went along with his plan, “Russia would accept those terms,” according to a person who heard them.

    “Ukraine knows that its current government and wartime efforts are totally dependent on Starlink,” the person familiar with the discussions said. “The decision to keep Starlink running or not rests entirely in the hands of one man. That’s Elon Musk. He hasn’t been elected, no one decided to give him that power. He has it because of the technology and the company he built.”

    On Tuesday Musk denied a report he has spoken to Putin directly about Ukraine. On Thursday, when a Ukrainian minister tweeted that Starlink is essential to Ukraine’s infrastructure, Musk replied: “You’re most welcome. Glad to support Ukraine.”

    More than seven months into the war, it’s hard to overstate the impact Starlink has had in Ukraine. The government in Kyiv, Ukrainian troops as well and NGOs and civilians have relied on the nimble, compact and easy-to-use units created by SpaceX. It’s not only used for voice and electronic communication but to help fly drones and send back video to correct artillery fire.

    CNN has seen it used at numerous Ukrainian bases.

    Elon Musk pauses and looks down as he speaks during a press conference at SpaceX's Starbase facility near Boca Chica Village in South Texas on February 10, 2022.

    “Starlink has been absolutely essential because the Russians have targeted the Ukrainian communications infrastructure,” said Dimitri Alperovitch, co-founder of the Silverado Policy Accelerator, a think tank. “Without that they’d be really operating in the blind in many cases.”

    Though Musk has received widespread acclaim and thanks for responding to requests for Starlink service to Ukraine right as the war was starting, in reality, the vast majority of the 20,000 terminals have received full or partial funding from outside sources, including the US government, the UK and Poland, according to the SpaceX letter to the Pentagon.

    SpaceX’s request that the US military foot the bill has rankled top brass at the Pentagon, with one senior defense official telling CNN that SpaceX has “the gall to look like heroes” while having others pay so much and now presenting them with a bill for tens of millions per month.

    According to the SpaceX figures shared with the Pentagon, about 85% of the 20,000 terminals in Ukraine were paid – or partially paid – for by countries like the US and Poland or other entities. Those entities also paid for about 30% of the internet connectivity, which SpaceX says costs $4,500 each month per unit for the most advanced service. (Over the weekend, Musk tweeted there are around 25,000 terminals in Ukraine.)

    In his July letter to Musk, Ukraine’s commander-in-chief, Gen. Zaluzhniy, praised the Starlink units’ “exceptional utility” and said some 4,000 terminals had been deployed by the military. However, around 500 terminals per month are destroyed in the fighting, Zaluzhniy said, before asking for 6,200 more terminals for the Ukrainian military and intelligence services and 500 per month going forward to offset the losses.

    SpaceX said they responded by asking Zaluzhniy to instead take up his request to the Department of Defense.

    On September 8 the senior director of government sales for SpaceX wrote the Pentagon saying the costs have gotten too high, approaching $100 million. The official asked the Department of Defense to pick up Ukraine’s new request as well as ongoing service costs, totaling $124 million for the remainder of 2022.

    Those costs, according to the senior defense official, would reach almost $380 million for a full year.

    SpaceX declined repeated requests for comment on both the outages and their recent request to the Pentagon. A lawyer for Musk did not reply to a request for comment. Defense Department spokesman Bob Ditchey told CNN, “The Department continues to work with industry to explore solutions for Ukraine’s armed forces as they repel Russia’s brutal and unprovoked aggression. We do not have anything else to add at this time.”

    Early US support for Starlink came via the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) which according to the Washington Post spent roughly $3 million on hardware and services in Ukraine. The largest single contributor of terminals, according to the newly obtained documents, is Poland with payment for almost 9,000 individual terminals.

    US Pentagon in Washington DC building looking down aerial view from above

    The US has provided almost 1,700 terminals. Other contributors include the UK, NGOs and crowdfunding.

    The far more expensive part, however, is the ongoing connectivity. SpaceX says it has paid for about 70% of the service provided to Ukraine and claims to have offered that highest level – $4,500 a month – to all terminals in Ukraine despite the majority only having signed on for the cheaper $500 per month service.

    The terminals themselves cost $1500 and $2500 for the two models sent to Ukraine, the documents say, while consumer models on Starlink’s website are far cheaper and service in Ukraine is just $60 per month.

    That’s just 1.3% of the service rate SpaceX says it needs the Pentagon to start paying.

    “You could say he’s trying to get money from the government or just trying to say ‘I don’t want to be part of this anymore,’” said the person familiar with Ukraine’s requests for Starlink. Given the recent outages and Musk’s reputation for being unpredictable, “Feelings are running really high on the Ukrainian side,” this person said.

    Musk is the biggest shareholder of the privately-held SpaceX. In May, SpaceX disclosed that its valuation had risen to $127 billion and it has raised $2 billion this year, CNBC reported.

    Last week, Musk faced a barrage of criticism on Twitter – including from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky – after presenting in a series of tweets his peace plan to end the war. It would include giving Crimea to Russia and re-do referenda, supervised by the United Nations this time, in the four regions Russia recently illegally annexed.

    It echoed comments he’d made last month at an exclusive closed-door conference in Aspen, Colorado called “The Weekend,” at which Musk told a room full of attendees that Ukraine should seek peace now because they’ve had recent victories.

    “This is the time to do it. They don’t want to do it, that’s for sure. But this is the time to do it,” he said, according to a person in the room. “Everyone wants to seek peace when they’re losing but they don’t want to seek peace when they’re winning. For now.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • FCC could ban all new purchases of Huawei and ZTE telecom gear | CNN Business

    FCC could ban all new purchases of Huawei and ZTE telecom gear | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN Business
     — 

    The US government is poised to ban all future telecom equipment produced by Huawei and ZTE, two Chinese technology giants, from the American market in an expanding crackdown against perceived national security risks from China, according to a person familiar with the matter.

    The restrictions, outlined in a draft order by the Federal Communications Commission, would also target video surveillance gear by three other Chinese firms: Hytera, Hikvision and Dahua, the person said, adding that the ban would only apply to new products by the companies that have not already received FCC equipment authorization.

    A vote to approve the measure is expected before mid-November, the person added. The draft order was first reported by Axios.

    Asked for comment, an FCC official confirmed the proposal’s existence and told CNN that, if approved, it would update agency rules surrounding its list of providers deemed to be unacceptable national security risks — and fulfill the agency’s congressional mandate under the Secure Equipment Act of 2021.

    That bipartisan legislation, signed by President Joe Biden last November, required the FCC to develop rules within one year to stop reviewing or approving devices made by the covered companies.

    All electronics that can emit radio frequencies must undergo an FCC authorization process before they can be sold in the United States. The long-established process is intended to keep devices out of the US market that may produce harmful signal interference. But under the draft order the FCC would, for the first time, apply a national security interest to the equipment authorization process, the person said.

    “The FCC remains committed to protecting our national security by ensuring that untrustworthy communications equipment is not authorized for use within our borders, and we are continuing that work here,” FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel said in a statement provided to CNN Business on Thursday.

    In a separate statement, Republican commissioner Brendan Carr said: “The FCC has determined that Huawei, ZTE, and similar gear pose an unacceptable risk to our national security. That is why I have urged the FCC to stop reviewing and approving that equipment for use in the U.S. I look forward to achieving that result.”

    Spokespeople for the companies didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.

    The proposed ban would go further than prior steps the FCC has taken against Huawei and ZTE, whose networking equipment US officials have said could be used to intercept or monitor US communications.

    Previously, the FCC restricted US telecom carriers from using federal funding to purchase products from Huawei and ZTE, as well as from other providers on the agency’s so-called “covered list.” Later, officials such as Carr highlighted how the products were still available to carriers through the use of non-federal funding, and said the FCC should use its equipment authorization powers to effectively block them from the United States entirely.

    Biden’s subsequent signing of the Secure Equipment Act started a one-year clock for the FCC to put those restrictions into place.

    The FCC has also established a program to help carriers “rip and replace” Huawei and ZTE gear from their networks, though the program’s estimated cost has ballooned to $5.6 billion, up from initial estimates of around $2 billion.

    The top US wireless carriers have said they do not use Chinese-made equipment; telecom policy experts have said it is almost exclusively found in the networks of small providers seeking to minimize costs.

    Separately, in 2019, the Trump administration added Huawei to the Commerce Department’s so-called Entity List, which restricts exports to people and organizations named on the list without a US government license. The following year, the US government expanded on those restrictions by seeking to cut Huawei off from its chip suppliers that use US-made technology.

    The policies have contributed to sharp declines in Huawei’s telecom and handset businesses as the company has sought to shift focus to cars, cloud computing and its own mobile operating system.

    Huawei’s founder and CEO has previously claimed the company would never hand data over to the Chinese government, but western security experts have said the country’s national security and intelligence laws require Chinese companies to comply with demands for information.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Secret Service reached out to Oath Keepers ahead of January 6 riot | CNN Politics

    Secret Service reached out to Oath Keepers ahead of January 6 riot | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Secret Service agents were in contact with members of the Oath Keepers prior to January 6 an official with the agency tells CNN, as part of standard intelligence and response duties.

    The official said members of the Oath Keepers occasionally reached out to the Secret Service with questions about permissible items for rallies. Further, when agents learned the group planned to attend events, agents reached out and met with members. The official noted that is common when groups plan to demonstrate.

    The Washington Post first reported the agency’s outreach to the Oath Keepers ahead of January 6, 2021.

    “We are aware that individuals from the Oath Keepers have contacted us in the past to make inquiries,” Secret Service spokesman Anthony Guglielmi told CNN last week.

    It’s not uncommon for law enforcement agents to maintain contacts with groups that are of investigative interest. The Oath Keepers and other extremist groups that traveled to Washington for rallies after the 2020 election had numerous contacts with local and federal law enforcement agencies, testimony gathered in congressional and federal investigations has shown.

    The relationship between the Oath Keepers has come under increased scrutiny after testimony last week revealed the leader of the Oath Keepers, Stewart Rhodes, purported to be in touch with agents.

    John Zimmerman, a former North Carolina leader of the Oath Keepers, testified that he believed Rhodes was in touch with a Secret Service agent in the lead-up to the 2020 presidential election.

    Zimmerman, who has not been charged with a crime, said members of the Oath Keepers – who are currently on trial for charges relating to the January 6 US Capitol attack, including seditious conspiracy – gathered in September in Fayetteville, North Carolina, for a campaign rally for former President Donald Trump

    Members of the Oath Keepers were recruiting at the rally and working as personal security details, he said.

    To prepare for the rally, Zimmerman testified, Rhodes said he was in contact with a member of the Secret Service who advised the leader on what weapons were allowed near the rally. Zimmerman said he did not hear the entire conversation, but that Rhodes repeatedly represented he was in touch with an agent.

    Rhodes allegedly told other members of the Oath Keepers in a group chat that if Trump called upon them as a militia, he believed the US Secret Service would be “happy” to have their help, according to evidence presented in court Thursday.

    The text was presented during the seditious conspiracy trial of Rhodes and four other defendants. All five have pleaded not guilty.

    “If he calls us up as a militia I think the secret service would be happy to have us out there,” Rhodes wrote, according to prosecutors. Rhodes went on to say this conclusion was based upon numerous positive contacts between Oath Keepers and the Secret Service before several Trump rallies before January 6.

    This story has been updated with additional details.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Barnes seeks to rebut crime attacks headed into final Senate debate with Johnson in Wisconsin | CNN Politics

    Barnes seeks to rebut crime attacks headed into final Senate debate with Johnson in Wisconsin | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Mandela Barnes, the Democrat taking on Republican Sen. Ron Johnson in Wisconsin’s Senate race, on Thursday faces what could be his last clear shot at rebutting the avalanche of GOP attacks on crime and police funding that have taken a months-long toll on his campaign.

    Barnes and Johnson are set to meet for their second and final debate Thursday night – hours after the House committee investigating the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol holds a hearing that is expected to function as its closing argument ahead of the November midterm elections.

    Barnes is highlighting Johnson’s actions on that day, seeking to cast him as an unreliable and hypocritical messenger on what it means to support police officers. Johnson, who played a role in trying to push “fake electors” for then-President Donald Trump before the start of the congressional certification of the 2020 electoral votes, has repeatedly downplayed the attack on the Capitol, saying it was not an “armed insurrection,” including as recently as earlier this month.

    Johnson and Republican outside spending groups have hammered Barnes, the Wisconsin lieutenant governor, throughout the fall in television advertisements, at events and in their first debate on crime – echoing a theme the GOP has made a core component of its closing message in Senate races across the map. Those attacks have coincided with Johnson rebounding from a summer slump in the polls less than four weeks from Election Day.

    During a campaign event Tuesday in Milwaukee where the Wisconsin Fraternal Order of Police and the West Allis Professional Police Association endorsed the two-term Republican senator, Johnson said that Barnes has shown “far greater sympathy for the criminal or criminals versus law enforcement or the victims.” He pointed to Barnes’ history of statements in support of decreasing or redirecting police funding.

    “The dispiriting nature of attempting to cut or use the code words of ‘reallocate,’ ‘over bloated budgets,’ – my opponent says that it pains him to see a fully funded police budget. I mean, that type of rhetoric,” Johnson said, “Those types of policies are very dispiriting for police.”

    Barnes, who says he does not support defunding the police, is attempting to shift the debate over crime away from his previous comments by targeting Johnson’s actions around the attack on the Capitol after President Joe Biden defeated former President Donald Trump in the 2020 presidential election.

    Ahead of Thursday’s debate, Barnes plans to hold a virtual news conference with retired Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, who served on the National Security Council and emerged as a star witness against Trump during the his first impeachment. Barnes’ campaign said the event would serve to “hold Ron Johnson accountable for his attempt to send a fake slate of electors to the Vice President.”

    Johnson’s role in trying to put forward the slate of electors who had not been certified by any state legislature was uncovered in June by the House select committee investigating the events around the insurrection. “I was aware that we got this package and that somebody wanted us to deliver it, so we reached out to Pence’s office,” Johnson told CNN at the time.

    In his first debate with Barnes, Johnson said he did not know what he was being asked to hand Pence.

    “I had no idea when I got a call from the lawyers for the president of the United States to deliver something to the vice president, did I have a staffer who could help out with that – I had no idea what it was,” Johnson said. “I wasn’t even involved. I had no knowledge of an alternate state of electors.”

    His comment was part of perhaps the most memorable clash in their first debate last week. Barnes said that Johnson didn’t have any concern for the “140 officers that were injured in the January 6 insurrection.”

    “One officer was stabbed with a metal stake. Another crushed between a revolving door. Another hit in the head with a fire extinguisher,” Barnes said. “Let’s talk about the 140 officers that he left behind because of an insurrection that he supported.”

    Johnson said of the insurrection that he “immediately and forcefully and have repeatedly condemned it and condemned it strongly.”

    Barnes consistently led polls of the Senate race over the summer. But that edge has evaporated, more recent polls show – a change that has coincided with Republicans spending millions on TV ads focused on crime.

    A Marquette University Law School poll of Wisconsin released Wednesday showed movement among likely voters toward Johnson. The Republican led Barnes by 6 percentage points, 52% to 46%, among likely voters, the poll found. That’s a jump in Johnson’s favor from the neck-and-neck race the same poll found, with Johnson at 49% to Barnes’ 48%, in September.

    The poll’s results among likely voters are significantly more favorable to the GOP than are its results among all registered voters, suggesting substantial uncertainty hinging on Democrats’ ability to turn out less motivated supporters. By contrast, in Marquette’s latest results among all registered voters, Barnes and Johnson are tied at 47% in the Senate race.

    Other recent polls of the race have found likely voters deadlocked. In a CBS News/YouGov poll released Sunday, Johnson took 50% to Barnes’ 49% among likely voters.

    The Marquette poll found that inflation is a top issue in Wisconsin, with 68% of registered voters saying they are very concerned about it. Smaller majorities are also very concerned about public schools (60%), gun violence (60%), abortion policy (56%), crime (56%) and an “accurate vote count” (52%).

    But it’s crime that Republican strategists say has been central to Johnson’s rebound in the race.

    The attacks have taken place against the backdrop of rising violent crime figures, including a 70% increase in Wisconsin’s homicide rate from 2019 to 2021, according to the state’s Department of Justice. Republicans have also highlighted those convicted of violent crimes who have been paroled by the Wisconsin Parole Commission, an independent agency whose chairperson is appointed by the governor.

    “They don’t have an answer,” Brian Schimming, a Republican strategist in Wisconsin, said of Barnes’ campaign. “With Mandela Barnes, it’s not just one thing. It’s not anecdotal. There are three, four, five issues there that are not playing with an electorate that’s pretty concerned about crime right now, and not just if they’re in Milwaukee.”

    In the month of September, 61% of the nearly $9 million that Johnson and GOP groups spent on TV ads in the Wisconsin Senate race was behind ads focused on crime, according to data from the firm AdImpact.

    That share has dropped to 30% so far in October, but nine of the 14 ads that Republican groups have aired so far have been focused on crime.

    It has forced Democrats to respond. Barnes and Democratic groups have focused 40% of their TV ad spending so far in October on crime, with ads rebutting the GOP groups.

    The Republican attacks have focused on Barnes’ efforts as a state lawmaker to end cash bail, as well as a 2020 interview with PBS Wisconsin – weeks after the police killing of George Floyd in neighboring Minnesota – in which Barnes suggested that funding should be redirected from police budgets to other social services.

    “We need to invest more in neighborhood services and programming for our residents, for our communities on the front end,” he said then. “Where will that money come from? Well, it can come from over-bloated budgets in police departments.”

    He did, however, also stress in that same interview that he did not want police budgets completely done away with, saying, “The more money we invest in opportunity for people, the less money we have to spend on prisons.”

    One Johnson campaign ad shows video of Barnes saying that “reducing prison population is now sexy.” A narrator in the ad highlights Democratic Gov. Tony Evers’ administration’s efforts to reduce the state’s prison population and says: “That’s not sexy. It’s terrifying. And as a mother, I don’t want Mandela Barnes anywhere near the Senate, from defunding our police to releasing predators.”

    Another Johnson spot features the sheriffs of Ozaukee and Waukesha counties, both huge sources of Republican votes in the Milwaukee suburbs.

    “Barnes wants to defund our police,” Waukesha County Sheriff Eric Severson says in the ad.

    “Mandela Barnes’ policies are a threat to your family,” Ozaukee County Sheriff Jim Johnson says.

    Barnes’ campaign has responded with ads of its own, including one in which Barnes says of GOP ads claiming he supports defunding the police, “That’s a lie.”

    “Mandela doesn’t want to defund the police,” a retired Racine Police Department sergeant says in another Barnes spot. “He’s very supportive of law enforcement and I know his objective is to make every community in the state of Wisconsin better.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • New poll finds Georgia Senate race remains unchanged after allegations about Walker | CNN Politics

    New poll finds Georgia Senate race remains unchanged after allegations about Walker | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Sen. Raphael Warnock continues to hold an advantage over Herschel Walker in Georgia’s US Senate race, according to a new poll from Quinnipiac University, with the margin between the two candidates little changed compared with polling conducted before allegations emerged that Walker paid for a woman’s abortion and encouraged her to have another one.

    The survey, which was conducted after the allegations about Walker emerged last week, finds Warnock with 52% support among likely voters to 45% for Walker, about the same as in a mid-September poll. Walker’s favorability rating has shifted narrowly more negative, from 51% saying they held an unfavorable view of him in September to 55% now. Warnock’s favorability rating is unchanged.

    Voters broadly say that Walker is not honest (57% feel that way, including 96% of Democrats, 63% of independents and 16% of Republicans), and 58% feel he does not have good leadership skills. Majorities say Warnock is honest, by contrast (54% overall, including 93% of Democrats, 58% of independents and 14% of Republicans), and that he does have good leadership skills (57%). More also see Warnock as caring about average Georgians (57% say Warnock does vs. 46% saying Walker does).

    The race between Walker and Warnock is one of the most competitive Senate contests this midterm cycle, and is key to control of the evenly split chamber.

    Last week, the Daily Beast reported that Walker, who has opposed abortion rights during his campaign, had reimbursed a woman with whom he was in a relationship for a 2009 abortion. Additionally, The New York Times reported that he asked her to get the procedure again when she became pregnant two years later; she refused the second time.

    CNN has not independently confirmed the woman’s allegations.

    The Republican has repeatedly denied the allegations made in the reports, including in a Tuesday interview with ABC. “Yes, she’s lying,” he told the outlet.

    Georgia’s gubernatorial contest is also largely unchanged from Quinnipiac’s prior polling on it and suggests there is no clear leader in the race, with 50% behind incumbent Brian Kemp and 49% backing Democratic challenger Stacey Abrams.

    The survey of 1,157 Georgia likely voters was conducted October 7-10 by telephone and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 2.9 percentage points.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • US State Department says Iran nuclear deal ‘not our focus right now’ | CNN Politics

    US State Department says Iran nuclear deal ‘not our focus right now’ | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    The Iran nuclear deal is “not our focus right now,” US State Department spokesperson Ned Price said Wednesday, noting the administration was instead focusing on supporting the protesters in Iran as efforts to restore the nuclear deal have hit yet another impasse.

    “The Iranians have made very clear that this is not a deal that they have been prepared to make, a deal certainly does not appear imminent,” Price said at a department briefing.

    “Iran’s demands are unrealistic. They go well beyond the scope of the JCPOA,” he said, using the acronym for the formal name of the deal, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

    “Nothing we’ve heard in recent weeks suggests they have changed their position,” Price added.

    The spokesperson said the administration’s current focus “is on the remarkable bravery and courage that the Iranian people are exhibiting through their peaceful demonstrations, through their exercise of their universal right to freedom of assembly and to freedom of expression.”

    “And our focus right now is on shining a spotlight on what they’re doing and supporting them in the ways we can,” Price said.

    US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said in late September that he did not “see any prospects in the very near term” to bring about a return to the Iran nuclear deal.

    In an interview with CBS’ “60 Minutes,” Blinken said that “Iran has continued to try to add extraneous issues to the negotiation that we’re simply not going to say yes to.”

    “We will not accept a bad deal, the response that they’ve given to the last proposals put forward by our European partners have been a very significant step backwards,” he said.

    A senior State Department official said at that time that “we’ve hit a wall” because of Tehran’s “unreasonable” demands.

    Speaking to reporters during the UN General Assembly, the official said the UN nuclear watchdog’s probe into unexplained traces of uranium found at undisclosed Iranian sites remained the key sticking point.

    “At the same time as Iran is standing against its people on the street, it’s standing in the way of the kind of economic relief that a nuclear deal would provide. So I think they have to explain that to their own people why, on the verge of the deal, they would choose this issue and jeopardize at this point the possibility of the deal,” the official said in late September.

    Amid the standstill on the JCPOA, the Biden administration has unveiled a series of measures aimed at punishing the regime for its repression of the Iranian people and to try to support the protesters.

    In late September, the US announced sanctions on Iran’s Morality Police following the death of 22-year-old Mahsa Amini in their custody.

    In a statement, the US Treasury Department said it was sanctioning the morality police “for abuse and violence against Iranian women and the violation of the rights of peaceful Iranian protestors.”

    Shortly thereafter, amid internet shutdowns by the Iranian government in the face of widespread protests over Amini’s death, the US government took a step meant to allow technology firms to help the people of Iran access information online.

    Last week, the US issued additional sanctions on seven senior Iranian officials for the government shutdown of internet access and the violence against protesters, targeting Iran’s Minister of the Interior, Ahmad Vahidi, who oversees all Law Enforcement Forces that have been used to suppress protests, as well as its Minister of Communications.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The Fed only cares about inflation. That’s bad news for you | CNN Business

    The Fed only cares about inflation. That’s bad news for you | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    New York
    CNN Business
     — 

    Jerome Powell and other members of the Federal Reserve are obsessed with choking off inflation once and for all, even if the Fed’s series of aggressive rate hikes slow the economy to a crawl. That could be bad news for consumers, investors and Corporate America.

    What’s more, many market experts and economists note that the rate of inflation, while still uncomfortably high, is falling and should continue to decline – but there is a noted lag effect. Fed vice chair Lael Brainard admitted as much in a speech Monday, saying that “policy actions to date will have their full effect on activity in coming quarters.”

    Still, the Fed isn’t done raising rates. Investors are pricing in the strong probability of a fourth consecutive three-quarters of a percentage point hike at the Fed’s next meeting on November 2. And the chances of a fifth straight hike of that magnitude at the Fed’s December 14 meeting are also on the rise.

    It seems that Powell wants to atone for his mistake of repeatedly calling inflation “transitory” for much of last year. So the Fed is going to keep raising rates to prove that it is taking inflation seriously, even if that leads to a bigger pullback in stocks…and tipping the economy into a recession.

    Needless to say, that’s a problem. Especially since the Fed has two mandates: price stability and maximum employment. That means the jobs market might get hit due to the Fed’s laser-like focus on inflation.

    “My concern is that the Fed is tightening so quickly and so significantly without knowing what it means for the economy,” said Brian Levitt, global market strategist with Invesco.

    Keep in mind that the Fed’s series of rate hikes are unprecedented in the “modern” era of central banking, i.e. after Alan Greenspan became Fed chair in 1987 and the Fed became far more transparent.

    The Fed was far more opaque before Greenspan, and the market didn’t pick apart every speech, policy move and economic forecast the way Wall Street does now. Inflation in the 1970s and early 1980s was also a much different animal, due largely to an oil price shock that lasted years because of a supply shortage.

    The current inflation crisis stems from more temporary (we won’t say transitory) supply chain issues tied to the pandemic as well as the rapid reopening of the global economy following a brief recession.

    But the economy is now showing cracks. Long-term bond yields have surged, and mortgage rates have popped, cooling off the housing market. The stock market has deflated as well, wringing even more excess from the economy.

    “We’re more cautious because the Fed is tightening into a weakening economy,” said Keith Lerner, co-chief investment officer and chief market strategist with Truist Advisory Services. “These supersized hikes are the most aggressive in decades. But the Fed has scar tissue from inflation.”

    As painful this current bout of inflation is for Americans, it’s nothing compared to what people lived through in the early 1980s before then Fed chair Paul Volcker squashed inflation with a series of massive rate hikes.

    Unless pricing pressures pick up again, it appears the year-over-year increase for the consumer price index (CPI) peaked at 9% in June. That’s a big move from about 2.3% in February 2020 just before the pandemic shutdown. But 9% is still a far cry from the CPI high during the Volcker years of 14.6% in early 1980.

    And with consumer and wholesale prices already edging lower, some experts worry that the continued uber-hawkish stance by the Fed will do more harm than good for the economy.

    “The speed at which the Fed is increasing rates will certainly have some unintended consequences,” said Michael Weisz, president of Yieldstreet, an investment firm that specializes in so-called alternative assets such as real estate, private equity, venture capital and art.

    Weisz said the surge in interest rates could lead to a “consumer credit crunch being more pronounced,” in which loans beyond mortgages might become more expensive and harder to get.

    Rate hikes raise the costs for companies to pay down their debt, increasing the possibility of corporate bankruptcies and defaults on commercial loans. It may even potentially lead to stagflation…the double whopper of stagnant growth and continued inflation. In other words, prices may remain high and the job market will probably be worse.

    “The Fed runs a real risk of over-tightening, as the impacts of the restrictive policy may not flow through inflation and unemployment data until it’s too late,” Weisz added.

    As long as inflation remains the bigger issue for the economy, the Fed is going to focus more on getting prices under control. After all, the unemployment rate is at 3.5%, a half-century low.

    “The Fed has made it clear their number one priority right now is price stability,” said Dustin Thackeray, chief investment officer of Crewe Advisors. “Until the Fed sees sustained evidence their monetary policy is having a material impact on…the job market, they will maintain their persistent efforts in reining in inflationary pressures.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Supreme Court to take critical eye to Andy Warhol’s silkscreens of Prince | CNN Politics

    Supreme Court to take critical eye to Andy Warhol’s silkscreens of Prince | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The Supreme Court will consider Wednesday whether the late Andy Warhol infringed on a photographer’s copyright when he created a series of silkscreens of the musician Prince.

    The case marks a rare foray for the court into the world of visual arts and has attracted the attention of those in the art world who say an appeals court decision against Warhol calls into question the legitimacy of generations of artists who have drawn inspiration from preexisting works.

    Museums, galleries, collectors, and experts have also weighed in asking the justices to balance copyright law with the First Amendment in a way that will protect artistic freedom.

    Central to the case is the so called “fair use” doctrine in copyright law that permits the unlicensed use of copyright-protected works in certain circumstances.

    In the case at hand, a district court ruled in favor of Warhol, basing its decision on the fact that the two works in question had a different meaning and message. But an appeals court reversed – ruling that a new meaning or message is not enough to qualify for fair use.

    Now the Supreme Court must come up with the proper test.

    “Fair Use protects the First Amendment rights of both speakers and listeners by ensuring that those whose speech involves dialogue with preexisting copyrighted works are not prevented from sharing that speech with the world,” a group of art law professors who support the Andy Warhol Foundation told the justices in court papers.

    Lawyers for the Warhol Foundation contend that the artist created the “Prince Series” – a set of portraits that transformed a preexisting photograph of the musician Prince– in order to comment on “celebrity and consumerism.”

    They said that in 1984, after Prince became a superstar, Vanity Fair commissioned Warhol to create an image of Prince for an article called “Purple Fame.”

    At the time, Vanity Fair licensed a black and white photo that had been taken by Lynn Goldsmith in 1981 when Prince was not well known. Goldsmith’s picture was to be used by Warhol as an artist reference.

    Goldsmith – who specializes in celebrity portraits and earns money on licensing – had taken the picture initially while on assignment for Newsweek. Her photos of Mick Jagger, Bruce Springsteen, Bob Dylan and Bob Marley are all a part of the court’s record.

    Vanity Fair published the illustration based on her photo – once as a full page and once as a quarter page – accompanied by an attribution to her. She was unaware that Warhol was the artist for whom her work would serve as a reference, but she was paid a $400 licensing fee. The license stated “no other usage rights granted.”

    Unbeknownst to Goldsmith, Warhol went on to create 15 additional works based on her photograph. At some point after Warhol’s death in 1987, the Warhol Foundation acquired title to and copyright of the so-called “Prince Series.”

    Fans pay tribute to Prince

    In 2016, after Prince died, Conde Nast, Vanity Fair’s parent company, published a tribute using one of Warhol’s Prince Series works on the cover. Goldsmith was not given any credit or attribution for the image. And she received no payment.

    Upon learning about the series, Goldsmith recognized her work and contacted the Warhol Foundation advising it of copyright infringement. She registered her photo with the US Copyright Office.

    The Warhol Foundation – believing that Goldsmith would sue – sought a “declaration of noninfringement” from the courts. Goldsmith countersued with a claim of copyright infringement.

    A district court ruled in favor of the Warhol Foundation, concluding that the use of the photograph with no permission and no fee constituted fair use.

    Warhol’s work was “transformative,” the court said, because it communicated a different message from Goldsmith’s original work. It held that the Prince Series can “reasonably be perceived to have transformed Prince from a vulnerable, uncomfortable person to an iconic, larger-than-life figure.”

    The 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals however, reversed and said that the use of the pictures did not necessarily fall under fair use.

    The appeals court said the district court was wrong to assume the “role of art critic” and base its test for fair use on the meaning of the artistic work. Instead, the court should have looked at the degree of visual similarity between the two works.

    Under that standard, the court said, the Prince Series was not transformative, but instead “substantially similar” to the Goldsmith photograph and therefore not protected by fair use.

    It based its ruling on the fact that a secondary work, even if it adds “new expression” to a source material, can be excluded from fair use. The appeals court said the secondary work’s use of the original source material has to have a “fundamentally different and new” artistic purpose and character “such that the secondary work stands apart from the raw material used to create it.” The court emphasized that the primary work does not have to be barely recognizable within the secondary work, but that at a minimum it must ” comprise something more than the imposition of another artist’s style on the primary work.”

    The court said that the “overarching purpose and function” of the Goldsmith photo and the Warhol prints is identical because they are “portraits of the same person.”

    “Critically, the Prince Series retains the essential elements of the Goldsmith Photograph without significantly adding to or altering those elements, ” the court concluded.

    In appealing the case on behalf of the Warhol Foundation, lawyer Roman Martinez argued that the appeals court had gone badly wrong by forbidding courts from considering the meaning of the work as a part of a fair use analysis.

    He warned the court that if it were to embrace the reasoning of the appeals court, it would upend settled copyright principles and chill creativity and expression “at the heart of the First Amendment.”

    According to Martinez, copyright law is designed to foster innovation and sometimes builds on the achievements of others.

    Martinez stressed that the fair use doctrine – “which dates back at least to the 19th century” – reflects the recognition that a rigid application of the copyright statute would “stifle the very creativity which that laws was designed to foster.”

    He noted that Warhol’s works are currently found in collections across the world, including the Museum of Modern Art in New York, the Smithsonian collection and the Tate Modern in London. From 2004 through 2014 Warhol auction sales exceeded $3 billion.

    Martinez said Warhol made substantial changes by cropping Goldsmith’s image, resizing it, altering the angle of Prince’s face while changing tones, lighting and detail.

    “While Goldsmith portrayed Prince as a vulnerable human, Warhol made significant alterations that erased the humanity from the image, as a way of commenting on society’s conception of celebrities as products, not people,” Martinez argued and added, “the Prince series is thus transformative.”

    Lisa Blatt, a lawyer for Goldsmith, told the justices a very different story.

    “To all creators, the 1976 Copyright Act enshrines a longstanding promise: Create innovative works, and copyright law guarantees your right to control if, when and how your works are viewed, distributed, reproduced or adapted,” she wrote.

    She said that creators and multibillion-dollar licensing industries “rely on that premise.”

    She said that the Andy Warhol Foundation should have paid Goldsmith’s copyright fees. Blatt argued that Warhol’s work was almost identical to Goldsmith’s own.

    “Fame is not a ticket to trample other artists’ copyrights,” she said.

    The Biden administration is supporting Goldsmith in the case.

    Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar noted, for example, that book-to-film adaptations often introduce new meanings or messages, “but that has never been viewed as an independently sufficient justification for unauthorized copying.” She said that Goldsmith’s ability to license her photograph and earn fees has been “undermined” by the Warhol Foundation.

    The Art Institute of Chicago and other museums told the court that the appeals court decision has caused uncertainty not only for the work of arts themselves but the market for copies of works the museum creates through catalogues, documentaries and websites.

    Smokey Robinson on Prince: ‘He was a genius’

    Lawyers for the museums also noted that the lower court opinion “failed to consider” longstanding artistic traditions of using elements of pre-existing works in new works and asked the Supreme Court to revisit the appeals court ruling.

    In the Baroque era, for example, Giovanni Panini painted modern Rome (pictured in court papers) depicting a gallery showing famous art. Included are copies of preexisting works including Michelangelo’s Moses, Gian Lorenzo Bernini’s statutes of Constantine, David, Apollo and Daphne and his fountains of Piazza Navona. Contemporary artists also continue to leverage preexisting artwork, the museums argued. The street artist Banksy, for example, painted a piece, “Girl with a Pierced Eardrum” onto a building in Bristol. It was in reference to Johannes Vermeer’s masterpiece, “Girl with a Pearl Earring” from 1665.

    “All of these works would not be considered transformative under the Second’s circuit’s” approach, the museums argued.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Tulsi Gabbard, who sought 2020 Democratic nomination, says she’s leaving party | CNN Politics

    Tulsi Gabbard, who sought 2020 Democratic nomination, says she’s leaving party | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    Former congresswoman and 2020 presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard announced on Tuesday that she is leaving the Democratic Party.

    For Gabbard, the announcement is the culmination of years in which she has been increasingly at odds with the Democratic Party and its policies.

    “I can no longer remain in today’s Democratic Party. It’s now under the complete control of an elitist cabal of warmongers driven by cowardly wokeness, who divide us by racializing every issue & stoking anti-white racism, who actively work to undermine our God-given freedoms enshrined in our Constitution,” Gabbard said in a video posted to social media. The announcement was made on the first episode of her new podcast, “The Tulsi Gabbard Show.”

    Gabbard, who made history by becoming the first American Samoan and practicing Hindu in Congress following her election in 2012, also criticized what she said were Democrats’ “open border” policies and anti-police rhetoric.

    The former congresswoman, who represented Hawaii’s 2nd district, has long been a unique and occasionally controversial voice in the Democratic Party.

    As one of the Democratic presidential contenders in the crowded 2020 field, she touted herself as an Iraq War veteran and staked out a distinctly anti-interventionist foreign policy. On the campaign trail, she blamed US intervention in Latin America for creating instability that triggered the surge in migration across the southern US border and was a co-sponsor of several bills aimed at keeping migrant families together at the border.

    And when Gabbard was running for president, Hillary Clinton suggested in an interview that she was being groomed to run as a third-party candidate and was a favorite of the Russians. Clinton suggested that the person she was talking about was a “Russian asset,” while not naming the Hawaii Democrat.

    Gabbard filed a defamation lawsuit over the matter that she subsequently dropped in May 2020.

    Gabbard endorsed Joe Biden after suspending her presidential campaign in 2020, but she has since been a vocal critic of the President and regularly appears on Fox News.

    “President Biden campaigned on a message of unity, healing the partisan divide bringing the country together. He just gave a big speech saying supporters of President (Donald) Trump are the most extremist group in our country and a threat to our democracy. That’s half the country,” she said in her announcement video on Tuesday.

    Gabbard also faced criticisms earlier this year from local Democrats who voted to condemn her “for participating in an event that raised funds that will harm Democrats across the country” after she spoke at the Conservative Political Action Conference.

    The former congresswoman did not indicate which party she would be affiliated with moving forward but called on “independent-minded Democrats” to join her in leaving the Democratic Party.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The econ Nobel offers a timely warning about central banks’ power | CNN Business

    The econ Nobel offers a timely warning about central banks’ power | CNN Business

    [ad_1]

    This story is part of CNN Business’ Nightcap newsletter. To get it in your inbox, sign up for free, here.


    New York
    CNN Business
     — 

    The Nobel in economics is sort of the step-cousin of the Nobel family.

    It came about nearly 70 years after its literature and sciences counterparts, in 1969, and is technically called the “Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences.” It is awarded by the Swedish central bank, in honor of the namesake renaissance man Alfred Nobel who established the prizes.

    Some scholars really dislike the economics prize, including one of Nobel’s own descendants, who dismissed it as a “PR coup by economists.”

    But hey, it still comes with a cash prize. And it’s also pretty useful in reminding the world that economics as an academic field is, frankly, a barely understood hodge-podge of studies that is constantly evolving and so variable it’s almost useless outside of academia. (And I mean that with the utmost respect to economists, who, not unlike journalists, knew what they were doing when they chose their life of suffering.)

    Here’s the thing: Ben Bernanke, the former Federal Reserve chairman who guided the US economy through the 2008 financial crisis and subsequent recession, was awarded the Nobel in economics along with two other economists, Douglas Diamond and Philip Dybvig. (Congrats to all the winners, with apologies to Doug and Phil, who will forever be referred to in headlines about the Nobel as “and two other economists.”)

    Bernanke, who previously taught at Princeton and earned his Ph.D from MIT, received the award for his research on the Great Depression. In short, his work demonstrates that banks’ failures are often a cause, not merely a consequence, of financial crises.

    That was groundbreaking when he published it in 1983. Today, it’s conventional wisdom.

    WHY IT MATTERS

    The timing is everything here. The Nobel committee has been known to play politics (see: that time Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize after being in office for just eight months). And right now, it is using its spotlight to call attention to the high-stakes gamble playing out at central banks around the world, most notably the Fed.

    The rapid run-up in interest rates, led by the US central bank, is causing markets around the world to go haywire. And it’s especially bad news for emerging economies.

    Monetary tightening — especially when it is aggressive and synchronized across major economies — could inflict worse damage globally than the 2008 financial crisis and the 2020 pandemic, a United Nations agency warned earlier this month. It called the Fed’s policy “imprudent gamble” with the lives of those less fortunate.

    LESSONS FROM HISTORY

    On Monday, Diamond, one of the three newly minted Nobel laureates, acknowledged that the rate moves around the world were causing market instability.

    But he believes the system is more resilient than it used to be because of hard lessons learned from the 2008 crash, my colleague Julia Horowitz reports.

    “Recent memories of that crisis and improvements in regulatory policies around the world have left the system much, much less vulnerable,” Diamond said.

    Let’s hope he’s right.

    Oh hey, speaking of the Fed inflicting pain: We’re about to see big job losses, according to Bank of America.

    Under the rate hikes imposed by Jay Powell & Co, the US economy could see job growth cut in half during the fourth quarter of this year. Early next year, the bank expects to see losses of about 175,000 jobs a month.

    The litigation between Elon Musk and Twitter is officially on hold. The two sides now have until October 28 to work out a deal or once again gear up for a courtroom battle.

    The big question now is all about the money.

    Here’s the deal: Not even the world’s richest person has this kind of cash just lying around. Musk’s wealth is tied up in Tesla stock, which he can’t easily offload for a whole bunch of reasons. He needs to borrow the money, which means he’s got to get banks to pony up.

    By most accounts, he’ll be able to make it happen. But the Twitter deal is a harder pitch to make now than it was back in April, when Musk said he’d lined up more than $46 billion in financing, including two debt commitment letters from Morgan Stanley and other unnamed financial institutions, my colleague Clare Duffy writes.

    Musk has spent the past several months trashing Twitter as he sought to renege on his offer. Meanwhile, tech stocks have been hammered, ad revenues are declining, and the global economy has inched closer to a recession, sapping investor appetite for risk.

    Musk’s legal team said last week the banks that had committed debt financing previously were “working cooperatively to fund the close.”

    Twitter is, understandably, skeptical, given the many curve balls Musk has thrown at them since he got involved with the company earlier this year. The company raised concerns last week that a representative for one of the banks testified that Musk had not yet sent a borrowing notice and “has not otherwise communicated to them that he intends to close the transaction, let alone on any particular timeline.”

    What’s Musk’s endgame?

    No one knows, perhaps least of all Musk. But many legal experts following the case say Musk understood he’d likely lose at trial and then be forced to buy Twitter anyway. He’d rather buy the entire company than be deposed by Twitter’s lawyers and do further damage to Twitter in a trial.

    And the banks may not be able to walk away even if they want to.

    “The only way they could get out of it is to claim a material adverse effect and that Twitter has changed so much since they agreed to the deal that they no longer want to finance the deal,” said George Geis, professor of strategy at the UCLA Anderson School of Management.

    Even if the banks succeeded there, Musk may not be off the hook. The judge in the case could rule that Musk was at fault for the financing falling through — not a far-fetched notion after all the trash-talking — and order him to sue Morgan Stanley to provide the funds or close the deal without it.

    Bottom line, it seems like Musk will end up owning Twitter one way or another. And given his only vague musings about what he’d actually do with it, there are a whole host of unknowns lurking in Twitter’s future.

    Enjoying Nightcap? Sign up and you’ll get all of this, plus some other funny stuff we liked on the internet, in your inbox every night. (OK, most nights — we believe in a four-day work week around here.)

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Locks, laws and bullet-resistant shields: Election officials boost security as midterms draw closer | CNN Politics

    Locks, laws and bullet-resistant shields: Election officials boost security as midterms draw closer | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    In Douglasville, Georgia – just west of Atlanta – a new buzzer-entry system secures the doors of the Douglas County election office. And elections director Milton Kidd said he now varies the times and the routes he uses to travel to work – all to evade the attention of election conspiracy theorists who have targeted the office.

    In Madison, Wisconsin, where a top election official faced death threats in the aftermath of the 2020 election, officials have redesigned the city clerk’s office, adding cameras, locking doors and covering the windows with white paper, said city attorney Michael Haas. In addition, a new city ordinance establishes a fine of up to $1,000 for disorderly conduct directed at election officials.

    In Colorado, meanwhile, a new state law – the Vote Without Fear Act – prohibits carrying firearms at polling places or within 100 feet of a ballot drop box. And in Tallahassee, Florida, officials have added Kevlar and bullet-resistant acrylic shields to the Leon County elections office, said Mark Earley, who runs elections in the county.

    With Election Day less than a month away – and early voting already happening in some states – the officials charged with administering the midterms are racing to boost security for their staff, polling places and voters, as baseless conspiracy theories about fraud continue to swirl around the 2020 election and the one now underway.

    As CNN recently reported, the concerns about threats and harassment are so great that federal officials are now offering de-escalation training to local and state officials to help avert violence at the polls.

    “We certainly are in territory that we have not navigated in the past,” said Tina Barton, a former election official in Michigan who sits on the Committee for Safe and Secure Elections. It’s a bipartisan group of election experts and law enforcement officials, working to prevent threats against voters and election officials.

    “I’m sad about the fact that it took a scenario like this for us to have to look at all of these things and say, ‘How do we keep ourselves safe?’” she added of the threats that started after the 2020 election. “But we’re seeing unprecedented threats and harassment.”

    Barton said election officials are deploying a bevy of tactics to secure the elections – from installing cameras and lighting at drop boxes to adding GPS and other tracking devices to ballot bags to monitor their movement on Election Day.

    Election officials in North Carolina last week issued what they described as their “most comprehensive” guidance to local elections officials for maintaining order at polling places this fall. It reinforces that it’s a crime to interfere with voter or election workers. The North Carolina State Board of Elections has also developed a guide for local law enforcement to help officers identify and respond to voter intimidation.

    In Leon County, Florida, Earley said his staff has received active-shooter training as part of their preparations in recent election cycles. But he said it has taken on “more significance since January 6,” referring to the 2021 attack on the US Capitol.

    The extra steps to secure the building and protect the staff, Earley said, have sprung from worries about “people buying into myths and disinformation and feeling it’s their patriotic duty to take action.”

    “In today’s world, that action, unfortunately, oftentimes comes with firearms,” he added.

    In Oregon, meanwhile, the secretary of state’s office is urging local election officials to install signs outside ballot boxes that spell out voters’ rights and warn that voter intimidation violates the law – following social media references to activists targeting the boxes, said Ben Morris, a spokesman for the office.

    The state mails a ballot to every voter, which Oregonians return either by mail or by depositing into drop boxes. About 200 drop boxes are used around the state.

    In neighboring Washington state, officials in the Seattle area found and removed some 11 signs that had been posted by an “election integrity” activist and that warned that drop boxes were “under surveillance” ahead of the August 2 primary. King County officials called the signs an example of voter intimidation.

    (Amber Krabach, the activist who erected the signs, has sued King County and state officials in federal court, arguing that removing the signs violated her First Amendment right to free speech.)

    King County election officials are not aware of any security issues with their 76 ballot drop boxes right now, said Kendall Hodson, the county election office’s chief of staff, but “given what happened in the primary, we are keeping our eyes peeled for any unusual behavior.”

    Back in Douglas County, Georgia – a community of roughly 145,000 people that backed President Joe Biden in 2020 – Kidd said he’s dismayed and discouraged by what he and his staff have endured.

    Activists have trailed workers and photographed their license plates. In the 2020 election, people claiming election fraud dug through the trash at one polling location, found destroyed sample ballots and accused officials of throwing out votes, he said.

    And this year, he’s had several companies refuse to rent the trucks to the county that it needs to transport equipment to precincts.

    “In this climate, any business that’s associated with elections becomes a target,” he said. (Kidd has secured the trucks but said he doesn’t want to name the supplier for fear of further trouble.)

    Kidd, who has worked in the county’s election system for seven years, said he’s lost much of his once-stable workforce of temporary poll workers as a result of all the harassment and stress.

    “We’re able do things at the precinct” to protect workers, he said. “But we’re not able to go home with you. We’re not able to be with you in the grocery store.”

    “The level of depression, the level of anxiety that is now present in election administration is ridiculous,” he added. “And I don’t know, personally myself, how much longer I am going to do this.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Why the GOP can’t count on Joe Biden’s low ratings to sink Democrats | CNN Politics

    Why the GOP can’t count on Joe Biden’s low ratings to sink Democrats | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    We are now under a month until Election Day, and you can feel the midterm campaign really taking hold. From Herschel Walker generating headlines for his troubles in Georgia to the Senate GOP campaign arm cutting bait in New Hampshire, we’re getting down to crunch time.

    All of this is happening with President Joe Biden’s approval rating stuck in the low-to-mid 40s. Democratic Senate nominees, though, still seem to be holding leads in a number of important battlegrounds (i.e., Arizona, Georgia, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania) that are key to determining control of the chamber.

    So this got me thinking: In an era of high polarization, will Biden sink his party in these key races? A look back through recent history suggests that it may not.

    And that’s where we begin our view of the week in politics that was.

    This past week, CNN released polls conducted by SSRS in Arizona and Nevada. What was notable was that Biden’s approval rating was a mere 41% among likely voters in both states.

    Looking at that number, you’d think Democrats should be down considerably in both states. But in Arizona, Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly clung to a narrow lead, while Democratic Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto was in a close race in Nevada.

    Indeed, these are not the only states where that is true. Recent polling from Georgia, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania shows Biden well south of a 50% approval rating, but the Democratic Senate nominees there are polling a good deal ahead of him.

    For Republicans hoping Biden’s numbers will drag the Democratic ticket into oblivion, history says to hold on for a second.

    The high correlation between how people feel about a president and how they vote for the Senate began in earnest in the 2010 cycle. That gives us two midterms to analyze whether Democrats can win with an unpopular Democratic president.

    It turns out there were at least eight Senate races in which the Democratic nominee won and the exit polls found the Democratic president (Barack Obama) with an approval rating below 50%.

    Three of these were in 2010 (Colorado, Nevada and West Virginia) and five were in 2014 (Illinois, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Oregon and Virginia). Obama averaged an approval rating of 44% in these eight states. Democrats were able to emerge victorious in all of them.

    Now some of these (i.e., Illinois and Oregon) were blue states that aren’t politically comparable to the states Democrats need to win this year to maintain Senate control.

    But the other six were either swing states or flat-out red (i.e., West Virginia). Obama’s approval rating averaged 42% in these six states.

    The formula to win in these six states tended to be pretty simple: a very popular Democratic nominee (i.e., Joe Manchin in West Virginia) or an unpopular Republican nominee.

    Consider the three races that are probably the best analogies to this year’s races: Colorado and Nevada in 2010 and New Hampshire in 2014. Republicans Ken Buck of Colorado, Sharron Angle of Nevada and Scott Brown of New Hampshire all had negative net favorability (favorable minus unfavorable) ratings.

    (It was harder to get reliable data for Minnesota and Virginia, though it seems Republicans in those states were also underwater in terms of their favorable and unfavorable ratings.)

    Take a peek at recent 2022 polls from Arizona, Georgia, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania. They all share something in common: the Republican Senate candidate has a negative net favorability rating.

    The aforementioned CNN poll from Arizona is a perfect example. Republican Blake Masters had a net favorability rating of -16 points among likely voters. Kelly’s was +6 points.

    History has shown this is a recipe for success for Democrats. People vote for a Senate nominee of the president’s party when they like that nominee and dislike both the president and the other party’s Senate nominee.

    And it could be the recipe that saves Democrats’ Senate majority this year.

    A lot has been written about how polls have underestimated Republican strength in recent years. For Senate races, that might not have as big a consequence as you might think. In fact, Democrats would still win the Senate today if every state had the same polling miss it did in 2020.

    Less spoken about is the House. Even a small miss on the generic congressional ballot could have major consequences in terms of who controls that chamber.

    The generic congressional ballot usually asks respondents some form of the following question: “If the elections for Congress were held today, would you vote for the Democratic or Republican party?”

    The final generic congressional ballot aggregates have differed from the House popular vote by an average of about 3 points since 2000. That may not seem like a lot, but consider this: Every extra point swing in the national House vote is worth about three to four seats. So an average error of 3 points could be worth upward of 12 House seats.

    A generic ballot error like we had in 2020 (4 points) could be worth upward of 16 seats. That’s why the House forecasts in 2020 underestimated Republicans so much. The national environment was 4 points more Republican than what the polls indicated.

    Right now, Democrats and Republicans are tied on the generic congressional ballot of the national House vote. One estimate from FiveThirtyEight suggests that would result in an evenly divided House in terms of seats.

    So if the generic ballot ends up being off by the same margin this year as it was two years ago and if the current polling holds through the election, Republicans could be looking at a gain north of 20 House seats.

    Of course, it’s worth considering whether Democrats’ position on the generic ballot underestimates their standing nationally.

    Recent special elections have suggested a political environment that leans in their favor. If they were able to win the national House popular vote by a few points, they’d be clear favorites to hold on to the chamber.

    That is one reason why, as a number of smart people have said, it is time to seriously consider the possibility of Democrats holding the House. It’s still not likely, but it’s realistic.

    Growing up, many of you may have marked Columbus’ birthday each year. A CNN poll from 1992 showed that 57% of Americans thought the country should be celebrating the 500th anniversary of his voyage to America.

    Last year, however, only 27% of Americans told Ipsos that they planned to observe Columbus Day in the upcoming year.

    The change in celebrating Columbus comes as views of him have shifted in the last 30 years. A 1991 Gallup poll found that 59% of Americans believed Columbus first discovered America, compared with 14% for Leif Erikson and 7% for American Indians/Native Americans.

    In 2014, 49% of Americans said American Indians/Native Americans deserved the most credit, according to a CBS News survey. Columbus’ share dropped to 40%.

    Views split on Covid-19 communication: A bare majority (51%) told the Pew Research Center that public officials have done an excellent or good job of communicating with the public about the coronavirus outbreak. A similar 49% said public officials have done a poor or only a fair job.

    We’re becoming a cashless society: Just 24% of Americans had never used cash in a typical week back in 2015, according to Pew. That’s up to 41% this year.

    Flying the flag: Most Americans (55%) said in a Marist College poll that they display the American flag on their property for at least some of the year. There was a partisan split: 75% of Republicans do so compared with 43% of Democrats.

    [ad_2]

    Source link