ReportWire

Tag: National/Presidential Elections

  • Democratic presidential longshot Marianne Williamson on challenging Biden: ‘We should have as many people running in an election as feel moved’

    Democratic presidential longshot Marianne Williamson on challenging Biden: ‘We should have as many people running in an election as feel moved’

    [ad_1]

    Democrats largely have closed ranks behind President Joe Biden ahead of next year’s election, but he isn’t completely without challengers for the party’s nomination.

    Author and activist Marianne Williamson has thrown her hat in the ring, pursuing a longshot bid that comes after her 2020 presidential campaign fizzled out before the Iowa caucuses.

    Why isn’t she falling in line and supporting her party’s incumbent president? What’s her pitch to people who think she’s not a serious candidate? What are her top economic proposals?

    Williamson, 70, tackled those questions and more in a phone interview earlier this week.

    Our Q&A with the Democratic presidential hopeful has been edited for clarity and length.

    MarketWatch: In a nutshell, could you explain why you’re running for president?

    Williamson: I’m running for president because I believe that some things need to be said and some changes need to be made, in order to repair some serious damage that’s been done to our democracy, to our country, to our people and to our environment over the last 50 years.

    MarketWatch: You’ve talked about running to address “systemic economic injustices endured by millions of Americans” because of the “undue influence of corporate money on our political system.” What do you see as the top examples of that?

    Williamson: During the 1970s, the average American worker had decent benefits, could afford a home, could afford a yearly vacation, could afford a car and could afford to send their child to college. In the last 48 years, there has been a $50 trillion transfer of wealth from the bottom 90% to the top 1% of Americans. That transfer has decimated our middle class. We are now at a point where if you are among 20% of Americans, then the economy’s doing pretty well for you. But, unfortunately, that 20% is surrounded by a vast sea of economic despair. We have 60,000 people in the United States who die every year because they can’t afford healthcare
    XLV,
    -1.11%    ,
    one in four Americans living with a medical debt, and 18 million Americans unable to fill the prescriptions that their doctors give to them.

    If you are in the club in America, if you are making it in America — and I have sold some books, so I understand the high side of the free market and have benefited, and I’m grateful for that — but no conscious persons wants to feel that they create wealth at the expense of other people having a chance. That is not American. It’s not what the American Dream is supposed to be.

    I’m not trying to whitewash and romanticize American capitalism before this era. I’m not saying we were ever perfect, but it does seem to me that when I was growing up, the social consensus is that we were supposed to try. We knew that the higher good was that there would be this balance between individual liberty, including economic liberty, and a concern for the common good. But today concern for the common good has become almost derided as some quaint notion, and that we shouldn’t really give much more than lip service to it. And that’s a lot of human suffering that occurs because of that change in the social contract.

    MarketWatch: Here’s kind of a two-part question. What would be your top economic priorities, and how in particular would you address high inflation and the recent banking
    KBE,
    -1.65%
    crisis?

    Williamson: I’d like to see universal healthcare. I want to see tuition-free college at state colleges and universities, which is what we had in this country until the 1960s. There should be free childcare. There should be paid family leave. There should be guaranteed sick pay and a livable wage. And I think Americans are waking up to the fact that those things that I just mentioned are considered moderate issues in every other advanced democracy. They should not be considered left-wing fringe issues. They are granted to the citizens of every other advanced democracy.

    That was your first question. The second has to do with high inflation. A lot of that high inflation has to do with price gouging by huge corporations, whether it has to do with food companies, transportation companies and so forth. All of those CEOs should testify before Congress and talk about the ways that they have — for the sake of their own profits — gouged the American people, particularly at such a time as this. And this is what happens when we normalize such a lack of conscience and such a lack of ethics within our system.

    In terms of what happened with the bank in Silicon Valley
    SIVBQ,
    -3.39%    ,
    which is what your third question was, right? I think the depositors should be made whole, but the bank executives who were taking multimillion-dollar bonuses for themselves, both before and right after the crash, they certainly should not get those bonuses. And also it’s concerning that some of the tech investors that would benefit the most from those deposits were the ones who caused the run on the bank. I don’t think that they should receive the benefit of what happens when those deposits are made whole. But the average depositor absolutely should be made whole in such cases.

    MarketWatch: You mentioned free tuition and child care. Where would the funding for that come from?

    Williamson: The funding should come, first of all, from taxation. The 2017 tax cut in this country was a $2 trillion tax cut, and 83 cents of every dollar went to the highest-earning corporations and individuals. Now that tax cut also included the middle-class tax cut, and the middle-class tax cut was good.

    That tax cut for the highest earners should be repealed, but the middle-class tax cut should be put back in immediately.

    Secondly, we should stop all the corporate subsidies. Why are we giving subsidies to these companies that are already making multibillions of dollars in profit and often then price gouging the American people?

    Third, I believe there should be a wealth tax. If somebody has $50 million, I don’t have any problem with their paying an extra 2% tax. And if they have $1 billion, let them pay another 1%. Somebody with a $50 million portfolio, much less $1 billion in assets, would not even feel that change, but the changes in people’s lives that would be created by those shifts would be huge.

    MarketWatch: Your campaign often gets described as a real longshot bid. Why are you running when so many people say you have a low chance for success?

    Williamson: Well, certainly Donald Trump was considered a longshot. For that matter, when he began Barack Obama was considered a longshot. Surely we remember when Hillary Clinton was considered a shoo-in.

    MarketWatch: A recent Monmouth University poll of Democratic voters found 11% had a favorable view of you, 16% had an unfavorable view, 21% had no opinion, and 52% had not heard of you. How do you win over those voters who have an unfavorable view, and how do you reach the folks who haven’t heard of you?

    Williamson: Well, there was a poll that came out last week that put me at 10%, including 18% with independents and 21% with people under 30.

    It’s very difficult for someone like myself to get the message out when you have such institutional resistance to my even being in the conversation, and that is displayed in various ways. But there is independent media today. God knows there’s TikTok, where my information seems to be doing quite well.

    This early, no candidate should be allowing the polls to determine their path forward. I didn’t go into this expecting the approval of institutional forces. And I, as a matter of fact, expected the kind of resistance that I’ve received, but that doesn’t matter. What matters is that a certain agenda be placed before the American people, and I am providing that option — the option of that alternative agenda.

    I believe that agenda is the way for the Democrats to win in 2024. But even more importantly, I think it’s the agenda that will lead to the repair of this country.

    MarketWatch: You mentioned TikTok, and that has been a hot topic in Washington, D.C., in recent weeks. Do you have a view on the Democratic and Republican proposals to ban TikTok in the U.S.?

    Williamson: I think the United States government does need to be concerned with tech
    XLK,
    -1.00%
    surveillance, but I wish they were as concerned when it comes to American-run companies as when it comes to Chinese. It’s a serious issue, it’s a valid issue — the whole issue of surveillance. But it’s a gnarly issue as well, and rushing to shut something down, which is so obviously a platform depended on by millions and millions of Americans for information sharing, is never something that should be done lightly.

    MarketWatch: Some Americans may know you only for your spiritual work, and these folks may not think you’re a serious presidential candidate. The White House press secretary indicated she’s in that camp. What’s your message to win those folks over?

    Williamson: First of all, I don’t think of my campaign as quote-unquote trying to win anyone over. There’s something that I read years ago that has always guided my work: “If there’s something you genuinely need to say, there’s someone out there who genuinely needs to hear it.” I am speaking to people who I know agree with me. I wouldn’t be doing this if I weren’t aware that millions of people agree with me.

    I think it’s very sad that the president would allow a presidential press podium to be used to mock a political opponent, and I think that many people were and are offended by that. This is a democracy. We should have as many voices out there as possible. We should have as many people running in an election as feel moved. Nobody has a monopoly on good ideas. There are ideas on the left and ideas on the right. There are ideas all across the spectrum, and this is a point in American history where we as Americans should hear them all.

    MarketWatch: What do you think are some of the main things that President Biden has gotten right, and in what areas has he gone wrong?

    Williamson: Well, the first thing he did right was he defeated Donald Trump. The president has taken an incremental approach to America’s problems, and I believe that he does wish to alleviate the suffering of many people whose lives are affected by some deeply unjust systems. But I don’t think that the alleviation of stress is enough right now. We need fundamental economic reform.

    We also need a serious answer to climate change, and the president’s approval of the Willow project is not that. The president has said that he recognizes that climate change is an existential crisis, and yet he has given more oil
    CL00,
    +0.34%
    permits than even Donald Trump did, and he has approved the Willow project.

    He also said that there will be a raise in the minimum wage. He did that for federal workers, but when it came to the Senate parliamentarian saying that he couldn’t put that raise in a bill, then he conveniently stopped right there and simply acquiesced to what the parliamentarian had said.

    The Democratic House and Senate — they did cut child poverty in half with the child tax credit, but then, when that expired six months later, they didn’t bother to permanentize it.

    These are the kinds of half-measures and incremental measures which are not enough to change the fundamental economic patterns in this country that lead to so much chronic economic anxiety and despair.

    Joe Biden is shown in conversation in August 2019 with Marianne Williamson during an event for Democratic presidential candidates in Clear Lake, Iowa.


    AFP via Getty Images

    MarketWatch: One thing that comes up often with President Biden is his age, which is 80, while you’re 70. Do you think his age should be a concern, or is it ageism to bring it up?

    Williamson: I think the individual has to consider this themselves. I have a problem, of course, contributing to the conversation because of the issue of ageism. But on the other hand, everybody can see for themselves what they can see for themselves.

    I can only say if I were 80, I wouldn’t be running. But you know, I will not take potshots at the president, and I think that veers into potshots.

    MarketWatch: Let’s talk about taking on Donald Trump, Ron DeSantis or whomever the Republican nominee ends up being. Why do you think you’re the Democrat who could end up beating one of them?

    Williamson: Republicans are going to throw some big lies at the Democrats in 2024, and the only way that we’re going to defeat them, in my opinion, is to tell some big truths. Franklin Roosevelt said we would not have to worry about a fascist takeover in this country as long as democracy delivered on its promises. Democracy has not delivered on its promises. The only way to beat Donald Trump or Ron DeSantis in 2024 is to propose an agenda in which democracy once again delivers on its promises to the majority of the American people. And that would mean the issues I mentioned before: universal healthcare, tuition-free college, free child care, a guaranteed livable wage and paid family leave. Those are given to the citizens in every other advanced democracy, and there is no good reason whatsoever why they are not delivered to the average citizen in the United States.

    MarketWatch: There are Democrats who could be challenging President Biden for the party’s 2024 nomination, but they aren’t and instead they’re supporting him. Why aren’t there more efforts in the party to get people to run for president?

    Williamson: Well, you’d have to ask them why they’re not running. But there’s clearly a trope that the field should clear, and everybody should simply get in line with the opinion of the Democratic establishment that Biden is the man because they have decided so. I don’t see it that way. I believe the Democratic primary voters — and independent voters and anyone else, if it’s an open primary — they should decide who the Democratic candidate is. To me, that’s what democracy is. That’s what elections are about.

    MarketWatch: The Democratic Party is not expected to hold presidential primary debates for 2024. What can you do to change that and get some time on a debate stage?

    Williamson: Well, I hope to have a successful campaign. I hope to have high poll numbers. I hope to have a lot of people in those primary states yelling foul. It’s a government of the people, by the people, for the people. The American people should hear what their options are, and that’s what a debate would be. If enough people realize that and believe it and make laws about it, then that is what will happen.

    I think sometimes there’s a kind of learned powerlessness on the part of the American people today. We forget the radicalism of the American experiment, which is that the governance of this country is supposed to be in our hands. But the American people have been trained to expect too little and almost trained to give up the power of independent thought. I hope that my campaign and other things that occur in this campaign season will awaken people, and I think a certain kind of awakening is happening already.

    MarketWatch: We’re a financially focused publication, so here’s a question along those lines. I looked at your financial disclosure from your 2020 presidential run. It showed some investments in big public companies like Apple
    AAPL,
    -0.58%
    and Mastercard
    MA,
    +0.27%
    …

    Williamson: Wait, what are you talking about?

    MarketWatch: That’s from your 2019 executive-branch personnel public financial disclosure report. It shows investments in various stocks and funds. The question — for our readers who are investors or people saving for retirement — is could you describe your own approach to investing and preparing for retirement? 

    Williamson: Socially responsible investing, and that’s why I said, “Whoa, what?” Because I believe in investing in socially responsible companies.

    MarketWatch: One last question: What else would you like people to know?

    Williamson: America has some serious problems, but we have infinite potential to solve those problems. We need to revisit our first principles, as John Adams said, and find that place in our hearts where, as Americans, as adults in this generation, we recognize that this profound idea of American democracy is put in our hands for safekeeping. And that doesn’t just give us rights; it gives us responsibilities. The political system in the United States speaks to us too often like we’re children, like we’re seventh-graders. Our public dialogue is too often on this kind of seventh-grade level. This is not a time to be an immature thinker, and it’s not a time to get into mean-spiritedness or cynicism either. If we allow ourselves to rise to the occasion, no matter what our politics are, we’re going to repair what has been broken, and we are going to initiate a new beginning. I think that’s possible. Other generations have done it, and we can do it, too.

    MarketWatch: Thank you for being available to chat.

    Williamson: Thank you very, very much.

    Now read: Here are the Republicans running for president — or seen as potential 2024 candidates

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Liberals regain Wisconsin Supreme Court majority ahead of abortion-ban ruling

    Liberals regain Wisconsin Supreme Court majority ahead of abortion-ban ruling

    [ad_1]

    MADISON, Wis. — A Democratic-backed Milwaukee judge won the high stakes Wisconsin Supreme Court race Tuesday, ensuring liberals will take over majority control of the court for the first time in 15 years with the fate of the state’s abortion ban on the line.

    Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Janet Protasiewicz, 60, defeated former Justice Dan Kelly, who previously worked for Republicans and had support from the state’s leading anti-abortion groups.

    The victory speaks to the importance of abortion as an issue for Democrats in a key swing state, with turnout on pace to be the highest ever for a Wisconsin Supreme Court race that didn’t share the ballot with a presidential primary.

    In a jubilant scene at her victory party, the other three liberal justices on the court joined Protasiewicz on the stage and raised their arms in celebration.

    Protasiewicz tried to downplay the importance of abortion as an issue in her victory, even though she and her allies, including an array of abortion rights groups including Planned Parenthood, made it the focus of much of her advertising and messaging to voters.

    “It was really about saving our democracy, getting away from extremism and having a fair and impartial court where everybody gets a fair shot in the courtroom,” Protasiewicz told The Associated Press after her win. “That’s what it was all about.”

    The new court controlled 4-3 by liberals is expected to decide a pending lawsuit challenging the state’s 1849 law banning abortion enacted a year after statehood. Protasiewicz said during the campaign that she supports abortion rights but stopped short of saying how she would rule on the lawsuit. She had called Kelly an “extreme partisan” who would vote to uphold the ban.

    In addition to abortion, Protasiewicz’s win is likely to impact the future of Republican-drawn legislative maps, voting rights and years of other GOP policies. It will also ensure that liberals will have the majority leading up to the 2024 presidential election and immediately after.

    Four of the past six presidential elections in Wisconsin have been decided by less than a percentage point and Trump turned to the courts in 2020 in his unsuccessful push to overturn his roughly 21,000-vote loss in the state. The current court, under a 4-3 conservative majority, came within one vote of overturning President Joe Biden’s win in the state in 2020, and both major parties are preparing for another close race in 2024.

    Kelly is a former justice who has also performed work for Republicans and advised them on a plan to have fake GOP electors cast their ballots for Trump following the 2020 election even though Trump had lost.

    Ahead of the vote, Protasiewicz called Kelly “a true threat to our democracy” because of his advising on the fake elector scheme.

    Kelly had expressed opposition to abortion in the past, including in a 2012 blog post in which he said the Democratic Party and the National Organization for Women were committed to normalizing the taking of human life. He also had done legal work for Wisconsin Right to Life.

    Kelly was endorsed by the state’s top three anti-abortion groups, while Protasiewicz was backed by abortion rights advocates.

    Kelly was appointed to the state Supreme Court by then-Gov. Scott Walker, a Republican, in 2016. He served four years before being defeated in 2020 on the same ballot as the Democratic presidential primary. Kelly was endorsed by Trump that year.

    Trump did not endorse this year. Protasiewicz’s endorsements included Hillary Clinton.

    Kelly tried to distance himself from his work for Republicans, saying it was “irrelevant” to how he would work as a justice. He tried to make the campaign about Protasiewicz’s record as a judge, arguing that she was soft on crime and accusing her of being “bought and paid for” by Democrats.

    The Wisconsin Democratic Party gave Protasiewicz’s campaign more than $8 million, leading her to promise to recuse herself from any case brought by the party.

    Protasiewicz said that while she anticipates many of the issues raised in the campaign will come before the court in the coming years, she pledged to be impartial and not beholden to Democrats and her liberal backers who poured an unprecedented amount of money into the race.

    “I’ve told everybody on the entire time that I was running, despite the fact that I was sharing my personal values, every single decision that I will render will be rooted in the law,” she said. “And that is the bottom line. They’re independent and rooted in the law.”

    Kelly, in a statement after his loss, said Protasiewicz “made her campaign about cynical appeals to political passions, serial lies, and a blatant disregard for judicial ethics and the integrity of the court.”

    “I wish Wisconsin the best of luck,” he said. “I think it will need it.”

    Protasiewicz was outspoken on Wisconsin’s gerrymandered legislative maps, calling them “rigged.” Kelly accused her of prejudging that case, abortion and others that could come before the court.

    The state Supreme Court upheld Republican-drawn maps in 2022. Those maps, widely regarded as among the most gerrymandered in the country, have helped Republicans increase their hold on the state Legislature to near supermajority levels, even as Democrats have won statewide elections, including Tony Evers as governor in both 2018 and 2022 and Biden in 2020.

    Protasiewicz will serve a 10-year term starting in August replacing retiring conservative Justice Pat Roggensack.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Dominion Voting Systems’ defamation case against Fox News should continue to trial, says Delaware judge

    Dominion Voting Systems’ defamation case against Fox News should continue to trial, says Delaware judge

    [ad_1]

    DOVER, Del. (AP) — A voting-machine company’s defamation case against Fox News over its airing of false allegations about the 2020 presidential election will go to trial after a Delaware judge on Friday ruled that a jury must decide whether the network aired the claims with actual malice, the standard for proving libel against public figures.

    Superior Court Judge Eric Davis ruled that neither Fox nor Dominion Voting Systems had presented a convincing argument to prevail on whether Fox acted with malice without the case going to trial. But he also ruled that the statements Dominion had challenged constitute defamation “per se” under New York law. That means Dominion did not have to prove damages to establish liability by Fox.

    “ ‘The evidence developed in this civil proceeding demonstrates that [it] is CRYSTAL clear that none of the statements relating to Dominion about the 2020 election are true.’ ”


    — Superior Court Judge Eric Davis

    “The evidence developed in this civil proceeding demonstrates that [it] is CRYSTAL clear that none of the statements relating to Dominion about the 2020 election are true,” Davis wrote in his summary judgment ruling.

    The decision paves the way for a trial start in mid-April.

    Dominion is suing the network for $1.6 billion, claiming Fox defamed it by repeatedly airing false allegations by then-President Donald Trump and his allies in the weeks after the 2020 election claiming the company’s machines and its accompanying software had switched votes to Democrat Joe Biden. The network aired the claims even though internal communications show that many of its executives and hosts didn’t believe them.

    The company sued Fox News and its parent, Fox Corp.
    FOX,
    +1.36%

    FOXA,
    +1.13%    ,
    which shares ownership with News Corp
    NWS,
    +1.99%

    NWSA,
    +1.77%    ,
    parent company of MarketWatch publisher Dow Jones.

    Don’t miss: Top congressional Democrats Schumer and Jeffries seek on-air acknowledgements that Fox News personalities knew Trump lost and election wasn’t stolen

    See: 2020 election ‘was not stolen,’ Fox Chairman Rupert Murdoch said under oath, according to evidence in Dominion case

    Also: Pro-Trump on air, Tucker Carlson privately told his Fox News producer that he hates the former president with a passion

    Fox has said it was simply covering newsworthy allegations made by a sitting president claiming his re-election had been stolen from him. In his ruling, Davis said Fox could not escape potential liability by claiming privileges for neutral reporting or opinion.

    “FNN’s failure to reveal extensive contradicting evidence from the public sphere and Dominion itself indicates that its reporting was not disinterested.” the judge wrote.

    In a statement issued after the ruling, Dominion said it was gratified that the court had rejected Fox’s arguments and found “as a matter of law that their statements about Dominion are false. We look forward to going to trial.”

    Fox emphasized that the case is about the media’s First Amendment protections in covering the news. “Fox will continue to fiercely advocate for the rights of free speech and a free press as we move into the next phase of these proceedings,” the network said in a statement.

    See: ‘A complete nut’: Fox News hosts didn’t believe 2020 election fraud claims

    Also: Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity among potential witnesses at Fox News trial

    The coverage fed an ecosystem of misinformation surrounding Trump’s loss in 2020 that has persisted ever since.

    MarketWatch contributed.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Donald Trump has been indicted. Could he still run for president?

    Donald Trump has been indicted. Could he still run for president?

    [ad_1]

    Donald Trump was indicted by a Manhattan grand jury Thursday in a case involving hush-money payments to a porn star who said she’d had a sexual encounter with the former president. What will this mean for Trump’s plans to again seek the White House? As Trump presses ahead with his 2024 campaign, here are a few questions and answers about possible criminal charges from the Manhattan district attorney, Democrat Alvin Bragg, and their effects.

    Question: Can an indicted person run for president?

    Answer: Yes. There’s nothing in the Constitution preventing it. Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution doesn’t mention criminal records. The only requirements to run are being a natural-born citizen at least 35 years old and resident in the U.S. for 14 years.

    “ Not only can an indicted person run for president, but a convicted one can, too, legal experts say. ”

    Not only can an indicted person run for president, but a convicted one can, too, legal experts say. “There’s nothing in the Constitution disqualifying individuals convicted of crimes from running for or serving as president,” ABC News legal analyst Kate Shaw told the network.

    Were Trump to be convicted of a felony, however, he likely could not vote for himself — 48 states ban people with felony convictions from voting, according to advocacy group the Sentencing Project.

    From the archives (July 2020): Supreme Court deals setback to Florida felon voting rights

    Also see (May 2021): Florida’s DeSantis signs Republican voting bill that Democrats and critics call un-American; bill signing staged as ‘Fox & Friends’ exclusive

    Q.: What has Trump said about a possible indictment’s effect on his campaign?

    A.: “I wouldn’t even think about leaving,” he told reporters ahead of his speech at this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference. “Probably it will enhance my numbers.” Trump has said he did nothing wrong.

    Trump in mid-March said he could be arrested in the coming days, encouraged his supporters to protest and wrote on social media, “TAKE OUR NATION BACK!”

    Bragg, in response, told his staff that the office won’t be intimidated or deterred as it nears a decision on charging the former president.

    Q.: What have Trump’s rivals for the GOP nomination, or other Republican politicians, said about an indictment?

    A.: In a tweet Thursday, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, who is expected to announce his bid for the GOP presidential nomination, called the indictment “un-American” and accused the Manhattan D.A. of having a political agenda. DeSantis added that Florida would not cooperate in an extradition request.

    House Speaker Kevin McCarthy said “the House of Representatives will hold [Manhattan D.A.] Alvin Bragg and his unprecedented abuse of power to account,” while Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, who has called for a probe into the Manhattan D.A.’s investigation, tweeted a single word Thursday: “Outrageous.”

    Q.: What would a Trump arrest actually look like?

    A.: It’s standard for defendants arrested on felony charges to be handcuffed — but it’s unclear whether an exception would be made for Trump due to his status, the New York Times reported. The former president would likely be released on his own recognizance, the Times said, because an indictment likely would contain only nonviolent felony charges. But he would be fingerprinted and photographed.

    Q.: Is Bragg’s the only investigation Trump is facing?

    A.: No. Besides the Manhattan district attorney’s case, Trump is facing another in Fulton County, Ga., and two federal probes led by special prosecutor Jack Smith. The Georgia probe centers on efforts by Trump and his allies to overturn that state’s 2020 election result. Smith’s investigations concern Trump’s handling of classified material after he left office, and the ex-president’s involvement in the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

    So Trump could be in for more charges depending on the results of those investigations.

    Q.: Could something else prevent Trump from being president?

    A.: The 14th Amendment bars anyone from public office who, “having previously taken an oath” to support the Constitution, “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” or gave “aid or comfort” to enemies of the U.S. Late last year, a group of 40 House Democrats introduced legislation to bar Trump from holding office, and invoked the 14th Amendment, with Rep. David Cicilline saying the ex-president “very clearly” engaged in an insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021. Trump has denied wrongdoing.

    Now read: Who is Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan DA who may be set to bring charges against Donald Trump?

    Read more: Fulton County grand jury reported hearing a previously unknown Trump phone call with a top Georgia official

    Also see: Here are the Republicans running for president — or seen as potential 2024 candidates

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Pence ordered to testify before grand jury about alleged Trump effort to undo 2020 presidential election

    Pence ordered to testify before grand jury about alleged Trump effort to undo 2020 presidential election

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge has ruled that former Vice President Mike Pence will have to testify before a grand jury after he was subpoenaed by the special counsel investigating efforts by former President Donald Trump and his allies to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

    That’s according to two people familiar with the ruling, who spoke on condition of anonymity because it remains under seal.

    The…

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • As Biden talks about ‘back-to-back’ terms, here are the potential 2024 Republican candidates

    As Biden talks about ‘back-to-back’ terms, here are the potential 2024 Republican candidates

    [ad_1]

    The contest to become the Republican Party’s 2024 presidential nominee is heating up, with Nikki Haley, a former U.S. ambassador to the UN, and long-shot candidate Vivek Ramaswamy each announcing their runs last month.

    Another notable move is the rollout of a book by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, in which he argues that his approach to managing his state can provide a model for the rest of the country.

    And former President Donald Trump headlined the latest Conservative Political Action Conference, after announcing back in November that he’s running again. His remarks came after Haley and Ramaswamy gave their own CPAC speeches.

    Plus, former Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan has said he won’t seek his party’s nomination.

    So who are all the GOP politicians in the mix for 2024?

    Below is MarketWatch’s list of the potential Republican presidential contenders and the status of their candidacies.

    Meanwhile, President Joe Biden appears poised to announce this spring that he’ll seek re-election in 2024. Democrats seem to be closing ranks behind Biden, although author and activist Marianne Williamson said she’s seeking the party’s nomination again.

    Biden made a joke Tuesday about re-election at a White House event at which he presented medals to authors, singers and other honorees. He noted that novelist Colson Whitehead had won back-to-back Pulitzer Prizes.

    “I’m kind of looking for a back-to-back myself,” the president said.

    Related: Biden criticizes DeSantis over his Medicaid stance while in Florida

    And see: 5 things to know about Nikki Haley, the Republican candidate challenging Trump in 2024

    Plus: Ron DeSantis skips CPAC, says Republicans act like ‘potted plants’ when facing ‘woke ideology’

    Name

    		 Title

    		 Reports or statements on candidacy
    Greg Abbott

    		 Texas governor

    		 Abbott strategist said governor “will take a look at the situation” after state’s legislative session ends in late May
    John Bolton

    		 Former national security adviser, former ambassador to UN

    		 He has said he may run for president in 2024
    Liz Cheney

    		 Former Wyo. congresswoman

    		 She has said she hasn’t made a decision about a 2024 run
    Chris Christie

    		 Former N.J. governor

    		 He has said he’s considering running
    Ted Cruz

    		 U.S. senator for Texas

    		 He said he won’t seek the GOP presidential nomination, instead aiming for re-election in Senate
    Aaron Day

    		 Known in part for running against former N.H. GOP Sen. Kelly Ayotte

    		 He announced his candidacy in February
    Ron DeSantis

    		 Florida governor

    		 He hasn’t made a formal announcement, but his team has rolled out a book and talked to prospective campaign staff
    Nikki Haley

    		 Former ambassador to UN, former S.C. governor

    		 She announced her run in February
    Larry Hogan

    		 Former Md. governor

    		 He said he won’t run
    Asa Hutchinson

    		 Former Ark. governor

    		 He has said he plans to make a decision in April 
    Perry Johnson

    		 Businessman and former Mich. gubernatorial candidate

    		 He announced his candidacy in early March
    Brian Kemp

    		 Ga. governor

    		 He hasn’t ruled out running, but has said he’s “not focused on 2024“
    Steve Laffey

    		 Former Cranston, R.I., mayor

    		 He announced his candidacy in February
    Kristi Noem

    		 S.D. governor

    		 She has said she hasn’t ruled out a presidential run

    Mike Pence

    		 Former vice president

    		 He has beefed up his staff but said he doesn’t feel any rush to make an announcement
    Mike Pompeo

    		 Former secretary of state

    		 He has said he’s still deciding whether to run
    Vivek Ramaswamy

    		 Entrepreneur and author known for criticizing ESG investing, “wokeism”

    		 He announced his candidacy in February

    Kim Reynolds

    		 Iowa governor

    		 A former RNC chair has said she should be considered for 2024
    Tim Scott

    		 U.S. senator for S.C.

    		 He has delivered speeches in Iowa, a key primary state
    Francis Suarez

    		 Mayor of Miami, Fla.

    		 He has said he’s considering a run
    Chris Sununu

    		 N.H. governor

    		 He has said he’s considering a run
    Donald Trump

    		 Former president

    		 He announced in November that he’s running
    Glenn Youngkin

    		 Va. governor

    		 He hasn’t ruled out running, but said he’s focused on Virginia

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump subpoena withdrawn by Jan. 6 select committee

    Trump subpoena withdrawn by Jan. 6 select committee

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The House Jan. 6 committee has dropped its subpoena against former President Donald Trump as it wraps up work and prepares to dissolve next week.

    Mississippi Rep. Bennie Thompson, the committee’s Democratic chairman, wrote in a letter to Trump lawyer David Warrington on Wednesday that he is formally withdrawing the subpoena. “As you may know, the Select Committee has concluded its hearings, released its final report and will very soon reach its end,” Thompson wrote. “In light of the imminent end of our investigation, the Select Committee can no longer pursue the specific information covered by the subpoena.”

    The committee had voted to subpoena Trump during its final televised hearing before the midterm elections in October, demanding testimony and documents from the former president as it has investigated his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection and efforts to overturn his 2020 defeat.

    Lawmakers on the panel have acknowledged the subpoena would be difficult to enforce, especially as Republicans are poised to take over the House in January. But the move had political and symbolic value.

    “We are obligated to seek answers directly from the man who set this all in motion,” Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming, the panel’s vice chair and one of two Republicans on the nine-member committee, said at the time. “And every American is entitled to those answers.”

    Trump then sued the panel in November to avoid cooperating. The lawsuit contended that while former presidents have voluntarily agreed to provide testimony or documents in response to congressional subpoenas in the past, “no president or former president has ever been compelled to do so.”

    The committee’s request for documents was sweeping, including personal communications between Trump and members of Congress as well as extremist groups. Trump’s attorneys said it was overly broad and framed it as an infringement of his First Amendment rights.

    While the panel never gained Trump’s testimony, the committee interviewed more than 1,000 witnesses, including most of his closest White House aides and allies.

    Many of those witnesses provided substantive detail about his efforts to sway state legislators, federal officials and lawmakers to help him overturn his defeat. And White House aides who were with him on Jan. 6 told the panel about his resistance to tell the violent mob of his supporters to leave the Capitol after they had broken in and interrupted the certification of President Joe Biden’s victory.

    In its final report issued last week, the committee concluded that Trump engaged in a “multipart conspiracy” to upend the 2020 election and failed to act on the violence. The panel also recommended that the Justice Department investigate the former president for four separate crimes, including aiding an insurrection.

    On social media Wednesday evening, Trump and his lawyers construed the move as a victory. “They probably did so because they knew I did nothing wrong, or they were about to lose in Court,” Trump wrote on his social-media site. He called the panel “political Thugs.”

    On Twitter, Trump lawyer Harmeet Dhillon said the panel had “waved the white flag.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • House Jan. 6 select committee expected to advise Justice Department to hit Trump with criminal charges

    House Jan. 6 select committee expected to advise Justice Department to hit Trump with criminal charges

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The House Jan. 6 committee is wrapping up its investigation of the violent 2021 U.S. Capitol insurrection, with lawmakers expected to cap one of the most exhaustive and aggressive congressional probes in memory with an extraordinary recommendation: The Justice Department should consider criminal charges against former President Donald Trump.

    At a final meeting on Monday, the panel’s seven Democrats and two Republicans are poised to recommend criminal charges against Trump and potentially against associates and staff who helped him launch a multifaceted pressure campaign to try to overturn the 2020 election.

    Context: What to expect as House Jan. 6 panel readies final report on Trump’s ‘attempted coup’

    Also: Jan. 6 select committee to review referral recommendations from Cheney, Raskin, Schiff and Lofgren at Monday session

    While a criminal referral is mostly symbolic, with the Justice Department ultimately deciding whether to prosecute Trump or others, it is a decisive end to a probe that had an almost singular focus from the start.

    “I think the president has violated multiple criminal laws and I think you have to be treated like any other American who breaks the law, and that is you have to be prosecuted,” Rep. Adam Schiff, a Democrat from Southern California and a member of the panel, said Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

    The panel, set to dissolve on Jan. 3 with the advent of a Republican-led House, has conducted more than 1,000 interviews, held 10 well-watched public hearings and collected more than a million documents since it launched in July 2021. As it has gathered the massive trove of evidence, the members have become emboldened in declaring that Trump is to blame for the violent attack on the Capitol by his supporters almost two years ago.

    From the archives (June 2022): Fox News is notable exception as prime-time Jan. 6 committee hearing blankets TV airwaves

    Also (July 2022): Trump White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson’s live testimony before Jan. 6 select committee was a TV ratings hit: Nielsen data

    After beating their way past police, injuring many of them, the Jan. 6 rioters stormed the Capitol and interrupted the certification of President Joe Biden’s win, echoing Trump’s lies about widespread election fraud and sending lawmakers and others running for their lives.

    The attack came after weeks of Trump’s efforts to overturn his defeat — a campaign that was extensively detailed by the committee in its multiple public hearings. Many of Trump’s former aides testified about his unprecedented pressure on states, federal officials and on Vice President Mike Pence to find a way to thwart the popular will.

    “This is someone who in multiple ways tried to pressure state officials to find votes that didn’t exist, this is someone who tried to interfere with a joint session, even inciting a mob to attack the Capitol,” Schiff said. “If that’s not criminal, then I don’t know what it is.”

    See: Justice Department urges judge to hold Trump’s legal team in contempt over Mar-a-Lago case

    Members of the committee have said that the referrals for other individuals may also include ethics violations, legal misconduct and campaign finance violations. Lawmakers have suggested in particular that their recommended charges against Trump could include conspiracy to defraud the United States, obstruction of an official proceeding of Congress and insurrection.

    On insurrection, Schiff said Sunday that “if you look at Donald Trump’s acts and you match them up against the statute, it’s a pretty good match.” He said that the committee will focus on those individuals — presumably Trump — for whom they believe there is the strongest evidence.

    See: North Carolina state investigators say they’ve completed voter-fraud probe of Trump chief of staff Meadows

    Also: Nevada elections department subpoenaed in Trump 2020 election investigation

    And: Trump ally Kari Lake pursues formal challenge to loss in race for governor of Arizona

    While a so-called criminal referral has no real legal standing, it is a forceful statement by the committee and adds to political pressure already on Attorney General Merrick Garland and special counsel Jack Smith, who is conducting an investigation into Jan. 6 and Trump’s actions.

    The committee is also expected at the hearing to preview its massive final report, which will include findings, interview transcripts and legislative recommendations. Lawmaker have said a portion of that report will be released Monday.

    “We obviously want to complete the story for the American people,” said Rep. Jamie Raskin, a Maryland Democrat and constitutional scholar who serves on the select committee. “Everybody has come on a journey with us and we want a satisfactory conclusion, such that people feel that Congress has done its job.”

    The panel was formed in the summer of 2021 after Senate Republicans blocked the formation of what would have been a bipartisan, independent commission to investigate the insurrection. That opposition spurred the Democratic-controlled House to form a committee of its own. House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy of California, a Trump ally, decided not to participate after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi rejected some of his appointments. That left an opening for two anti-Trump Republicans in the House — Reps. Liz Cheney of Wyoming and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois — to join the seven Democrats serving on the committee.

    From the archives (January 2021): Kevin McCarthy becomes poster boy for Republicans walking back their recent Trump criticism

    While the committee’s mission was to take a comprehensive accounting of the insurrection and educate the public about what happened, they’ve also aimed their work at an audience of one: the attorney general. Lawmakers on the panel have openly pressured Garland to investigate Trump’s actions, and last month he appointed a special counsel, Smith, to oversee several probes related to Trump, including those related to the insurrection.

    In court documents earlier this year, the committee suggested criminal charges against Trump could include conspiracy to defraud the United States and obstruction of an official proceeding of Congress.

    Wall Street Journal: Trump tax returns may be released after House panel meets Tuesday

    In a “conspiracy to defraud the United States,” the committee argues that evidence supports an inference that Trump and his allies “entered into an agreement to defraud the United States” when they disseminated misinformation about election fraud and pressured state and federal officials to assist in that effort. Trump still says he won the election to this day.

    The panel also asserts that Trump obstructed an official proceeding, the joint session of Congress in which the Electoral College votes are certified. The committee said Trump either attempted or succeeded at obstructing, influencing or impeding the ceremonial process on Jan. 6 and “did so corruptly” by pressuring Pence to try to overturn the results as he presided over the session. Pence declined to do so.

    The committee may make ethics referrals for five House Republicans — including McCarthy — who ignored congressional subpoenas from the panel. Those referrals are unlikely to result in punishment since Republicans are set to take over the House majority in January.

    Read on: McCarthy’s long-held speaker ambition set to come to a head when new Congress convenes in January

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Democratic incumbent Warnock wins Georgia’s Senate runoff election — here’s why it matters

    Democratic incumbent Warnock wins Georgia’s Senate runoff election — here’s why it matters

    [ad_1]

    Democratic Sen. Raphael Warnock of Georgia has defeated his Republican challenger Herschel Walker in their closely watched runoff election, according to an Associated Press projection. 

    While Democrats already had maintained their grip on the Senate by winning other crucial races in last month’s midterm elections, Warnock’s win means his party will have a 51-49 majority in the Senate for the next two years of President Joe Biden’s term.

    That’s an upgrade from their situation over the past two years, when the chamber has been split 50-50, and they’ve controlled it only because Vice President Kamala Harris can cast tiebreaking votes.

    Democrats now are expected to adjust ratios on Senate committees so they have a one-vote majority on each panel. Currently, committee ratios are set at 50-50 to reflect the chamber’s split.

    A Stifel analyst has warned investors that committees next year could end up issuing subpoenas without Republican support, increasing headline risk for some sectors such as tech
    XLK,
    -2.14%    ,
    social media
    SOCL,
    -2.05%    ,
    financials
    XLF,
    -0.88%
    and healthcare
    XLV,
    -0.76%    .

    A 51-49 Senate also is expected to lessen the influence of two moderate Democratic senators — West Virginia’s Joe Manchin and Arizona’s Kyrsten Sinema.

    Manchin derailed Biden’s Build Back Better package a year ago, and Democratic-run Washington ended up passing a scaled-back measure in August. Sinema’s recent moves, meanwhile, have included successfully opposing changes to the so-called carried-interest loophole that allows private-equity firms to pay lower tax rates.

    Walker’s loss is another blow for Donald Trump as the former president ramps up his 2024 White House campaign. Trump already saw other allies flop in their Senate midterm races, with, for example, Mehmet Oz coming up short in Pennsylvania and Blake Masters going down in Arizona.

    Warnock had been favored to win by betting markets such as PredictIt, but Cook Political Report said the contest would be close and rated it as a toss-up.

    Walker faced criticism from both Democrats and Republicans for his past treatment of women and gaffes while campaigning.

    Related: Second woman claims Herschel Walker pressured her to have abortion

    The former football star’s loss means the 2022 midterms end on a downbeat note for Republicans, and that’s after their hopes for a red wave were dashed. The GOP took control of the House of Representatives, but will have a slim majority in that chamber.

    Analysts had said voters appeared increasingly focused on issues on which Republicans claimed high ground such as inflation. But exit polls on Nov. 8 suggested the party performed worse than expected because many Democrats and independents voted partly to show their disapproval of Trump — and those voters were energized by the Supreme Court’s June decision that overturned Roe v. Wade.

    See: Anti-Trump vote and Dobbs abortion ruling boost Democrats in 2022 election

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Democrats move to make South Carolina, not Iowa, first primary voting state

    Democrats move to make South Carolina, not Iowa, first primary voting state

    [ad_1]

    Democrats voted Friday to remove Iowa as the leadoff state on the presidential nominating calendar and replace it with South Carolina starting in 2024, a dramatic shakeup championed by President Joe Biden to better reflect the party’s deeply diverse electorate.

    The Democratic National Committee’s rule-making arm made the move to strip Iowa from the position it has held for more than four decades after technical meltdowns sparked chaos and marred results of the state’s 2020 caucus.

    The change also comes after a long push by some of the party’s top leaders to start choosing a president in states that are less white, especially given the importance of Black voters as Democrats’ most loyal electoral base.

    Discussion on prioritizing diversity drew such impassioned reaction at the committee gathering in Washington that DNC chair Jaime Harrison wiped away tears as committee member Donna Brazile suggested that Democrats had spent years failing to fight for Black voters: “Do you know what it’s like to live on a dirt road? Do you know what it’s like to try to find running water that is clean?”

    “Do you know what it’s like to wait and see if the storm is going to pass you by and your roof is still intact?” Brazile asked. “That’s what this is about.”

    Following Biden’s recommendations, the committee also opted to have New Hampshire and Nevada jointly vote second, a week after South Carolina, followed by Georgia and Michigan, two critical battleground states that would round out the top five in subsequent weeks.

    All the proposed contests would likely be held in February 2024.

    That’s a change from the current calendar, with Iowa holding the first-in-the-nation caucuses since 1972, followed by New Hampshire’s first-in-the-nation primary since 1920.

    Nevada and South Carolina have gone next since the 2008 presidential election, when Democrats last did a major overhaul of their primary calendar.

    The move will still have to be approved by the full DNC in a vote likely early next year, but it will almost certainly follow the rule-making committee’s lead.

    The revamped schedule could largely be moot for 2024 if Biden opts to seek a second term, but may remake Democratic presidential cycles in 2028 and beyond.

    The president has said for months that he intends to run again, and White House aides have begun making staffing discussions for his likely reelection campaign, even though no final decision has been made.

    Biden wrote in a letter to rules committee members on Thursday that the party should scrap “restrictive” caucuses altogether because their rules on in-person participation can sometimes exclude working-class and other voters.

    He told also told party leaders privately that he’d like to see South Carolina go first to better ensure that voters of color aren’t marginalized as Democrats choose a presidential nominee.

    Four of the five states now poised to start the party’s primary are presidential battlegrounds, meaning the eventual Democratic winner would be able to lay groundwork in important general election locales.

    That’s especially true for Michigan and Georgia, which both voted for Donald Trump in 2016 before flipping to Biden in 2020. The exception is South Carolina, which hasn’t gone Democratic in a presidential race since 1976.

    The first five voting states would be positioned to cast ballots before Super Tuesday, the day when much of the rest of the country holds primaries. That gives the early states outsize influence since White House hopefuls struggling to raise money or gain political traction often drop out before visiting much of the rest of the country.

    Scott Brennan, a rules committee member from Iowa, said “small, rural states” like his “must have a voice in the presidential nominating process.”

    “Democrats cannot forget about entire groups of voters in the heart of the Midwest without doing significant damage to the party in newer generations,” Brennan said.

    The Republican National Committee has already decided to keep Iowa’s caucus as the first contest in its 2024 presidential primary, ensuring that GOP White House hopefuls — which include Trump — have continued to frequently campaign there.

    House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, South Carolina’s lone congressional Democrat and one of Biden’s top supporters in Congress, said the president called him Thursday to inform him of his push to move his state up.

    “I didn’t ask to be first,” Clyburn said. “It was his idea to be first.”

    Clyburn’s endorsement of Biden in 2020 boosted the candidate’s flagging presidential campaign just ahead of South Carolina’s primary, which he won big. That helped Biden shake off early losses in Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada and eventually take the White House.

    “He knows what South Carolina did for him, and he’s demonstrated that time and time again, by giving respect to South Carolina,” Clyburn said.

    Still, the vote by the rules committee has faced serious pushback, with some states vowing to ignore the changes altogether. That’s despite the panel approving language saying states could lose all of their delegates to the party’s national convention if they attempt to violate new rules.

    Iowa and New Hampshire have said laws in their states mandate them going before others, and they intend to abide by those, not DNC decrees.

    Nevada, with its heavily Hispanic population, has balked at sharing the second-place slot with New Hampshire, a state 2,500 miles away.

    Nevada committee member Artie Blanco’s voice cracked as she argued against the change.

    “If we want to build a strong relationship with Latinos,” Blanco said, “then Nevada must stand alone on a date and not have to share that date.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Republicans clinch slim majority in House, likely signaling gridlock ahead

    Republicans clinch slim majority in House, likely signaling gridlock ahead

    [ad_1]

    Republicans will take over the U.S. House of Representatives two years into President Joe Biden’s term, though their narrow majority looks set to cause headaches for GOP leaders.

    Republican hopes for a strong red wave have been dashed, but the Associated Press said Wednesday that the party won enough House seats — 218 — to control that chamber of Congress, as results from the midterm elections continue to be tabulated.

    The battle for the U.S. Senate went to the Democrats late Saturday. Democrats will retain their hold on the Senate after winning a key race in Nevada, giving Biden’s party control of at least one chamber of Congress for the next two years.

    “Republicans have officially flipped the People’s House!” Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., the front-runner to become House Speaker, tweeted late Wednesday. “Americans are ready for a new direction, and House Republicans are ready to deliver.”

    While Republicans will control just one chamber of Congress, they now are expected to deliver a check on Biden’s policy priorities, such as by potentially using a debt-ceiling showdown to force spending cuts. 

    In a statement late Wednesday, President Joe Biden called for bipartisanship: “The American people want us to get things done for them. They want us to focus on the issues that matter to them and on making their lives better. And I will work with anyone — Republican or Democrat — willing to work with me to deliver results.”

    Related: Democrats weigh end run around Republicans to raise debt limit

    And see: Republican lawmakers likely to target ‘woke capitalism’ after the midterm elections, analysts say

    The Republican House majority has yet to be finalized but could be the narrowest of the 21st century, even less than in 2001, when the GOP had a nine-seat majority with two independents.

    Washington is likely to face new periods of gridlock, with Democrats also keeping their hold on the White House since Biden still has two years to serve before the 2024 presidential election. That’s after Democrats in the past two years used party-line votes to push through measures such as March 2021’s stimulus law and this past summer’s package targeting healthcare, climate change and taxes.

    The House switching to red from blue fits the historical pattern in which a first-term president’s party tends to lose congressional ground in the midterms. The GOP highlighted raging inflation in its effort to win over American voters.

    The House seats to flip to the GOP included one held by Democratic Rep. Elaine Luria of Virginia, who lost to Republican challenger Jen Kiggans, as well as two seats in Florida. But Democrats also flipped House seats and won re-elections in bellwether races, with Virginia Rep. Abigail Spanberger and Indiana Rep. Frank Mrvan notching victories.

    Read more: Here are the congressional seats that have flipped in the midterm elections

    Democrats have had a grip on the House since the 2018 midterms. They’ve run the Senate for two years, controlling the 50-50 chamber only because Vice President Kamala Harris can cast tiebreaking votes.

    Among the competitive Senate races, Democrats kept their hold on seats in Arizona, Colorado and New Hampshire, while scoring a pick-up in Pennsylvania. Republicans maintained their control of seats in North Carolina, Ohio and Wisconsin.

    Georgia’s Senate contest is headed to a Dec. 6 runoff, but its outcome has become less significant.

    Related: Ohio’s J.D. Vance tells MarketWatch he wants to end tax loopholes for tech companies and ban congressional stock trading

    Betting markets since late on Election Day have been seeing Democrats staying in charge of the Senate and Republicans winning the House. Ahead of last Tuesday’s voting, betting markets had signaled confidence in GOP prospects for taking over both the Senate and House.

    Analysts had said voters last month appeared increasingly focused on Republican issues such as high prices for gasoline
    RB00,
    -0.35%
    and other essentials, at the expense of Democrats’ agenda items such as climate change and abortion rights.

    But exit polls suggested that Republicans performed worse than expected because many Democrats and independents voted partly to show their disapproval of former President Donald Trump — and those voters were energized by the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision that overturned Roe.

    See: Anti-Trump vote and Dobbs abortion ruling boost Democrats in 2022 election

    The former president announced his 2024 White House run late Tuesday. Earlier Tuesday, House Republicans chose Rep. Kevin McCarthy of California, the current minority leader, as their candidate for speaker. Thirty-one Republicans voted against McCarthy, signaling that he must shore up his support before the vote on the speakership takes place in January.  It’s an early sign of how Republicans’ narrow majority is creating turbulence for the House GOP leadership. 

    Now read: What a Republican-controlled House might mean for tech: Plenty of hand-wringing over Section 230 liability shield

    And see: DeSantis viewed as frontrunner for Republican 2024 presidential nomination after Trump’s candidates flop in midterm elections

    Plus: Senate Republicans pick Mitch McConnell as their leader, as Rick Scott’s challenge flops

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Opinion: No, an indictment wouldn’t end Trump’s run for the presidency – he could even campaign or serve from a jail cell

    Opinion: No, an indictment wouldn’t end Trump’s run for the presidency – he could even campaign or serve from a jail cell

    [ad_1]

    Donald Trump announced his 2024 run for the presidency on Nov. 15. In his address he railed against what he perceived as the “persecution” of himself and his family, but made scant mention of his legal woes.

    There is also the not-so-small matter of a Justice Department investigation into the Jan. 6 storming of the Capitol.

    The announcement has led some to speculate that Trump may be hoping that becoming a presidential candidate will in some way shield him from prosecution.

    Donald Trump has announced his bid to run in the 2024 presidential race. WSJ’s Alex Leary breaks down the challenges the former president will face on the campaign trail, including new political rivals and a waning influence among voters. Photo Composite: Adele Morgan

    So, does an indictment—or even a felony conviction—prevent a presidential candidate from running or serving in office?

    The short answer is no. Here’s why:

    The U.S. Constitution specifies in clear language the qualifications required to hold the office of the presidency. In Section 1, Clause 5 of Article II, it states: “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

    These three requirements—natural-born citizenship, age, and residency—are the only specifications set forth in the United States’ founding document.

    Congress has ‘no power to alter’

    Furthermore, the Supreme Court has made clear that constitutionally prescribed qualifications to hold federal office may not be altered or supplemented by either the U.S. Congress or any of the states.

    Justices clarified the court’s position in their 1969 Powell v. McCormack ruling. The case followed the adoption of a resolution by the House of Representatives barring pastor and New York politician Adam Clayton Powell Jr. from taking his seat in the 90th Congress.

    The resolution was not based on Powell’s failure to meet the age, citizenship and residency requirements for House members set forth in the Constitution. Rather, the House found that Powell had diverted Congressional funds and made false reports about certain currency transactions.

    When Powell sued to take his seat, the Supreme Court invalidated the House’s resolution on grounds that it added to the constitutionally specified qualifications for Powell to hold office. In the majority opinion, the court held that: “Congress has no power to alter the qualifications in the text of the Constitution.”

    For the same reason, no limitation could now be placed on Trump’s candidacy. Nor could he be barred from taking office if he were to be indicted or even convicted.

    But in case of insurrection…

    The Constitution includes no qualification regarding those conditions—with one significant exception. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment disqualifies any person from holding federal office “who, having previously taken an oath…to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”

    The reason why this matters is the Justice Department is currently investigating Trump for his activities related to the Jan. 6 insurrection at the Capitol.

    Under the provisions of the 14th Amendment, Congress is authorized to pass laws to enforce its provisions. And in February 2021, one Democratic congressman proposed House Bill 1405, providing for a “cause of action to remove and bar from holding office certain individuals who engage in insurrection or rebellion against the United States.”

    Even in the event of Trump being found to have participated “in insurrection or rebellion,” he might conceivably argue that he is exempt from Section 3 for a number of reasons. The 14th Amendment does not specifically refer to the presidency and it is not “self-executing”—that is, it needs subsequent legislation to enforce it. Trump could also point to the fact that Congress enacted an Amnesty Act in 1872 that lifted the ban on office holding for officials from many former Confederate states.

    He might also argue that his activities on and before Jan. 6 did not constitute an “insurrection” as it is understood by the wording of the amendment. There are few judicial precedents that interpret Section 3, and as such its application in modern times remains unclear. So even if House Bill 1405 were adopted, it is not clear whether it would be enough to disqualify Trump from serving as president again.

    Running from behind bars

    Even in the case of conviction and incarceration, a presidential candidate would not be prevented from continuing their campaign—even if, as a felon, they might not be able to vote for themselves.

    History is dotted with instances of candidates for federal office running—and even being elected—while in prison. As early as 1798—some 79 years before the 14th Amendment — House member Matthew Lyon was elected to Congress from a prison cell, where he was serving a sentence for sedition for speaking out against the Federalist Adams administration.

    Eugene Debs, founder of the Socialist Party of America, ran for president in 1920 while serving a prison sentence for sedition. Although he lost the election, he nevertheless won 913,693 votes. Debs promised to pardon himself if he were elected.

    And controversial politician and conspiracy theorist Lyndon LaRouche also ran for president from a jail cell in 1992.

    A prison cell as the Oval Office?

    Several provisions within the Constitution offer alternatives that could be used to disqualify a president under indictment or in prison.

    The 25th Amendment allows the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet to suspend the president from office if they conclude that the president is incapable of fulfilling his duties.

    The amendment states that the removal process may be invoked “if the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.”

    It was proposed and ratified to address what would happen should a president be incapacitated due to health issues. But the language is broad and some legal scholars believe it could be invoked if someone is deemed incapacitated or incapable for other reasons, such as incarceration.

    To be sure, a president behind bars could challenge the conclusion that he or she was incapable from discharging the duties simply because they were in prison. But ultimately the amendment leaves any such dispute to Congress to decide, and it may suspend the president from office by a two-thirds vote.

    Indeed, it is not clear that a president could not effectively execute the duties of office from prison, since the Constitution imposes no requirements that the executive appear in any specific location. The jail cell could, theoretically, serve as the new Oval Office.

    Finally, if Trump were convicted and yet prevail in his quest for the presidency in 2024, Congress might choose to impeach him and remove him from office. Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution allows impeachment for “treason, bribery, and high crimes and misdemeanors.”

    Whether that language would apply to Trump for indictments or convictions arising from his previous term or business dealings outside of office would be a question for Congress to decide. The precise meaning of “high crimes and misdemeanors” is unclear, and the courts are unlikely to second-guess the House in bringing an impeachment proceeding.

    For sure, impeachment would remain an option—but it might be an unlikely one if Republicans maintained their majority in the House in 2024 and 2026.

    Stefanie Lindquist is Foundation Professor of Law and Political Science at Arizona State University. She previously taught at Vanderbilt University, the University of Georgia and the University of Texas.

    This commentary was originally published by The Conversation—No, an indictment wouldn’t end Trump’s run for the presidency—he could even campaign or serve from a jail cell

    More on Trump’s legal problems

    Trump Organization executive says he helped colleagues dodge taxes

    Judge says he’ll appoint monitor to oversee Donald Trump’s company

    Justice Department weighs appointing special counsel if Trump runs in 2024, report says

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Donald Trump announces 2024 presidential run: ‘America’s comeback starts right now’

    Donald Trump announces 2024 presidential run: ‘America’s comeback starts right now’

    [ad_1]

    Donald Trump will seek the presidency for a third time in 2024, the former president announced in a speech from his Florida estate Tuesday night, paving the way for a contentious Republican primary and a potential rematch between Trump and President Joe Biden for the White House in two years.

    “In order to make America great and glorious again, I am tonight announcing my candidacy for president of the United States,” Trump said from Mar-a-Lago.

    The former president spoke a week after midterm elections that saw Democrats keep the Senate, and a number of candidates backed by him lost their races, such as Pennsylvania Senate candidate Mehmet Oz and that state’s GOP gubernatorial candidate, Doug Mastriano. That’s prompted debate about moving on from Trump as the party eyes its 2024 chances.

    Now read: Trump vs. DeSantis: Midterm election results shake up the Republican 2024 field

    And see: Ahead of Trump’s announcement, Mitt Romney calls former president an ‘aging pitcher who keeps losing games’

    Trump — who a House panel has charged with a conspiracy aimed overturning the 2020 presidential election — is likely to face a crowded field in the contest for the GOP presidential nomination, with Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis seen at this stage as his most formidable opponent. Other potential candidates include former Vice President Mike Pence, former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin and former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

    See: Here’s how candidates endorsed by Trump performed in the midterm elections

    Trump may view DeSantis as posing his most daunting challenge, given the energy he has spent since the midterm elections lashing out at the the Florida governor. The former president remains a popular figure in the Republican Party and has proven himself adept at sidelining rivals for the affection of the GOP base.

    Speaking to a crowded room at Mar-a-Lago, Trump bashed the Biden administration and claimed, “we built the greatest economy in the history of the world.” Under Biden, he said, the U.S. is a “nation in decline.” Biden fired back in a video posted on Twitter as Trump was speaking: “Donald Trump failed America.”

    “America’s comeback starts right now,” Trump said. “I will fight like I’ve never fought before.”

    During his White House term, Trump presided over impressive gains in the stock market, with the 24.2% rise in the Nasdaq
    COMP,
    +1.45%
    ranking as the best ever during a presidential term since the index made its debut in the early 1970s. The Dow Jones Industrial Average
    DJIA,
    +0.17%
    gained 11.8% and the S&P 500
    SPX,
    +0.87%
    rose 13.7% during the four-year span.

    Read:Stock-market performance under Trump trails only Obama and Clinton

    Some of those gains can be attributed to Trump’s signature legislative achievement: a major corporate-tax cut that saw the top federal rate slashed from 35% to 21%, padding corporate profits and making the shares of large U.S. companies more valuable, often via share buybacks.

    Investors were less enthusiastic about the former president’s trade war with China — a high-profile standoff that often sent stocks tumbling on news of new trade restrictions, or soaring on the perception of easing tensions.

    From the archives (May 2020): Trade-war collateral damage: destruction of $1.7 trillion in U.S. companies’ market value

    The arrival of the COVID-19 pandemic shifted the focus of policy makers in both countries, and Biden has largely kept the tariffs his predecessor put in place. Despite these restrictions, the U.S. trade deficit in goods with China set a record of $355 billion in 2021.

    Trump on Tuesday said he wants to eliminate the U.S.’s dependence on China, by bringing manufacturing back to the U.S. He also falsely claimed that inflation is at a 50-year high — it is at a 40-year high.

    Economic policy often took a back seat to the various scandals that plagued Trump in his tumultuous term in office, when he became the first president to ever be impeached twice by the House of Representatives.

    The first impeachment resulted from a 2019 phone call when he asked Ukrainian President Volodymr Zelensky for a “favor” in announcing the launch of an investigation into Biden, then viewed as a likely Trump rival in the 2020 election. Democrats alleged that Trump withheld aid approved by Congress in an effort to ensure an investigation was announced.

    The second impeachment of Trump followed the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, with a bipartisan majority in the House arguing that he encouraged the attack.

    The former president’s legal troubles have not abated since he left office, and he’s facing several state and local investigations, civil and criminal, while some experts believe he will be indicted by Attorney General Merrick Garland for mishandling defense secrets and obstruction of justice after an FBI raid appeared to show that he lied to the government about classified documents in his possession.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Katie Hobbs wins Arizona governor’s race, flipping state for Democrats

    Katie Hobbs wins Arizona governor’s race, flipping state for Democrats

    [ad_1]

    PHOENIX — Democrat Katie Hobbs was elected Arizona governor on Monday, defeating an ally of Donald Trump who falsely claimed the 2020 election was rigged and refused to say she would accept the results of her race this year.

    Hobbs, who is Arizona’s secretary of state, rose to prominence as a staunch defender of the legitimacy of the last election and warned that her Republican rival, former television news anchor Kari Lake, would be an agent of chaos. Hobbs’ victory adds further evidence that Trump is weighing down his allies in a crucial battleground state as the former president gears up for an announcement of a 2024 presidential run.

    She will succeed Republican Gov. Doug Ducey, who was prohibited by term limit laws from running again. She’s the first Democrat to be elected governor in Arizona since Janet Napolitano in 2006.

    “For the Arizonans who did not vote for me, I will work just as hard for you — because even in this moment of division, I believe there is so much more that connects us,” Hobbs said in a statement declaring victory. “This was not just about an election — it was about moving this state forward and facing the challenges of our generation.”

    Lake did not immediately comment after the race was called.

    The Associated Press called the governor’s race for Hobbs after the latest round of vote releases gave her a big enough lead that the AP determined she would not relinquish it. The AP concluded that, even though Lake had been posting increasingly larger margins in vote updates from Maricopa County, she was not gaining a big enough share to overtake Hobbs and was running out of remaining votes.

    Vote counting had gone on for days since the Tuesday election, as officials continued to tally massive amounts of late-arriving ballots.

    A onetime Republican stronghold where Democrats made gains during the Trump era, Arizona has been central to efforts by Trump and his allies to cast doubt on Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential victory with false claims of fraud. This year, many Trump-endorsed candidates faltered in general elections in battleground states, though his pick in the Nevada governor’s race, Republican Joe Lombardo, defeated an incumbent Democrat.

    Before entering politics, Hobbs was a social worker who worked with homeless youth and an executive with a large domestic violence shelter in the Phoenix area. She was elected to the state Legislature in 2010, serving one term in the House and three terms in the Senate, rising to minority leader.

    Hobbs eked out a narrow win in 2018 as secretary of state and was thrust into the center of a political storm as Arizona became the centerpiece of the efforts by Trump and his allies to overturn the results of the 2020 election he lost. She appeared constantly on cable news defending the integrity of the vote count.

    The attention allowed her to raise millions of dollars and raise her profile. When she announced her campaign for governor, other prominent Democrats declined to run and Hobbs comfortably won her primary.

    She ran a cautious campaign, sticking largely to scripted and choreographed public appearances. She declined to participate in a debate with Lake, contending that Lake would turn it into a spectacle by spouting conspiracy theories and making false accusations.

    She bet instead that voters would recoil against Lake, who picked verbal fights with journalists as cameras rolled and struck a combative tone toward Democrats and even the establishment Republicans who have long dominated state government.

    Pre-election polls showed the race was tied, but Hobbs’ victory was still a surprise to many Democrats who feared her timidity would turn off voters. She overcame expectations in Maricopa and Pima counties, the metro Phoenix and Tucson areas where the overwhelming majority of Arizona voters live. She also spent considerable time in rural areas, looking to minimize her losses in regions that traditionally support Republicans.

    Lake is well known in much of the state after anchoring the evening news in Phoenix for more than two decades. She ran as a fierce critic of the mainstream media, which she said is unfair to Republicans. She earned Trump’s admiration for her staunch commitment to questioning the results of the 2020 election, a stand she never wavered from even after winning the GOP primary.

    She baselessly accused election officials of slow-rolling the vote count this year and prioritizing Democratic ballots as she narrowly trailed Hobbs for days following the election.

    She has cited a problem with printers at about a third of Maricopa County vote centers that led on-site tabulators to reject some ballots. Election officials told voters to put ballots in a separate box to be counted later, but Republican leaders told their supporters to ignore that instruction and lines in some places backed up.

    The problem affected about 7% of ballots cast in person on Election Day and about 1% of the total cast in the county.

    Maricopa County Sheriff Paul Penzone said he increased security around the elections center Monday in anticipation that the race would be called and emotions could run hot, though he said there was no specific threat. Demonstrators have gathered outside the building for several days but have remained peaceful, he said.

    “I think we’re getting close to the end game so I want to be sure that we’re prepared,” Penzone told reporters in a news conference hours before the race call.

    The sheriff’s office was caught off guard two years ago when armed and angry protesters descended on the elections building in downtown Phoenix after Fox News and the AP called Arizona for Biden, marking the first time a Democrat won the state in more than two decades.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Midterm elections: Democrats hold Senate after Nevada and Arizona calls; Republicans fewer than 10 wins away from House control

    Midterm elections: Democrats hold Senate after Nevada and Arizona calls; Republicans fewer than 10 wins away from House control

    [ad_1]

    Democrats are projected to retain their hold on the U.S. Senate after winning a key race in Nevada, giving President Joe Biden’s party control of at least one chamber of Congress for the next two years.

    The Associated Press called Nevada’s Senate race for Democratic incumbent Catherine Cortez Masto over Republican challenger Adam Laxalt, giving Democrats a 50-seat count in the chamber. With Vice President Kamala Harris’s tie-breaking vote, and the chamber’s two independents causing with Democrats, Democrats will keep control.

    The House of Representatives, meanwhile, remained undecided late Saturday but with Republicans still favored. The GOP has 211 seats to Democrats’ 203, with 218 needed for a majority. Political handicappers give Democrats just a slim chance for retaining control of the House.

    Read: Democrats have 5% to 15% chance of keeping grip on House, Cook Political Report analyst says

    Should Republicans win control of the House, the GOP is expected to deliver a check on Biden’s policy priorities, such as by potentially using a debt-ceiling showdown to force spending cuts. 

    Related: Republican lawmakers likely to target ‘woke capitalism’ after the midterm elections, analysts say

    But holding the Senate gives Biden some advantages, as GOP control could have meant roadblocks for his cabinet picks or other officials, as well as limiting his capacity to shape the federal judiciary.

    Now see: Biden nominating Danny Werfel to head the IRS, White House says

    Democrats have had a grip on the House since the 2018 midterms. They’ve run the Senate for two years, with Vice President Harris’s constitutional role as Senate president positioning her to cast tiebreaking votes. Each party has a chance to pick up an extra vote after a Dec. 6 runoff in Georgia between Democratic Sen. Raphael Warnock and Republican challenger Herschel Walker.

    Read: Georgia Senate contest expected to soon overtake Pennsylvania’s as most expensive midterm election

    Democrats in the last two years have used party-line votes to push through measures such as March 2021’s stimulus law and this past summer’s package targeting healthcare, climate change and taxes.

    The House switching to red from blue would fit the historical pattern in which a first-term president’s party tends to lose congressional ground in the midterms. 

    Republicans’ majority is expected to be narrow, however, and that’s already creating turbulence for the House GOP leadership. Some members of the House Freedom Caucus say they’re opposed to Kevin McCarthy, the current House minority leader, becoming the chamber’s next speaker.

    Analysts had said voters in October and November appeared increasingly focused on issues on which Republicans have claimed high ground such as the prices of gasoline
    RB00,
    +2.45%
    and other essentials, at the expense of such Democratic Party agenda items as climate change and abortion and voting rights.

    Exit polls suggested that Republicans performed worse than expected because many Democrats and independents voted partly to show their disapproval of former President Donald Trump — and those voters were energized by the Supreme Court’s June decision that overturned Roe v. Wade.

    Check out: Anti-Trump vote and Dobbs abortion ruling boost Democrats in 2022 election

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Lula wins Brazil’s presidential runoff in rebuke of far-right Bolsonaro

    Lula wins Brazil’s presidential runoff in rebuke of far-right Bolsonaro

    [ad_1]

    SAO PAULO — Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has done it again: Twenty years after first winning the Brazilian presidency, the leftist defeated incumbent Jair Bolsonaro Sunday in an extremely tight election that marks an about-face for the country after four years of far-right politics.

    With 99.9% of the votes tallied in the runoff vote, da Silva had 50.9% and Bolsonaro 49.1%, and the election authority said da Silva’s victory was a mathematical certainty. At about 10 p.m. local time, three hours after the results were in, the lights went out in the presidential palace and Bolsonaro had not conceded nor reacted in any way.

    Before the vote, Bolsonaro’s campaign had made repeated — unproven — claims of possible electoral manipulation, raising fears that he would not accept defeat and would challenge the results if he lost.

    The high-stakes election was a stunning reversal for da Silva, 77, whose imprisonment for corruption sidelined him from the 2018 election that brought Bolsonaro, a defender of conservative social values, to power.

    “Today the only winner is the Brazilian people,” da Silva said in a speech at a hotel in downtown Sao Paulo. “This isn’t a victory of mine or the Workers’ Party, nor the parties that supported me in campaign. It’s the victory of a democratic movement that formed above political parties, personal interests and ideologies so that democracy came out victorious.”

    Da Silva is promising to govern beyond his party. He wants to bring in centrists and even some leaning to the right who voted for him for the first time, and to restore the country’s more prosperous past. Yet he faces headwinds in a politically polarized society where economic growth is slowing and inflation is soaring.

    This was the country’s tightest election since its return to democracy in 1985, and the first time since then that the sitting president failed to win reelection. Just over 2 million votes separated the two candidates; the previous closest race, in 2014, was decided by a margin of roughly 3.5 million votes.

    The highly polarized election in Latin America’s biggest economy extended a wave of recent leftist victories in the region, including Chile, Colombia and Argentina.

    As Lula spoke to his supporters — promising to “govern a country in a very difficult situation” — Bolsonaro had yet to concede.

    Da Silva’s inauguration is scheduled to take place on Jan. 1. He last served as president from 2003-2010.

    Thomas Traumann, an independent political analyst, compared the results to Biden’s 2020 victory, saying da Silva is inheriting an extremely divided nation.

    “The huge challenge that Lula has will be to pacify the country,” he said. “People are not only polarized on political matters, but also have different values, identity and opinions. What’s more, they don’t care what the other side’s values, identities and opinions are.”

    Congratulations for da Silva — and Brazil — began to pour in from around Latin America and across the world Sunday evening, including from U.S. President Joe Biden, who highlighted the country’s “free, fair, and credible elections.” The European Union also congratulated da Silva in a statement, commending the electoral authority for its effectiveness and transparency throughout the campaign.

    Bolsonaro had been leading throughout the first half of the count and, as soon as da Silva overtook him, cars in the streets of downtown Sao Paulo began honking their horns. People in the streets of Rio de Janeiro’s Ipanema neighborhood could be heard shouting, “It turned!”

    Da Silva’s headquarters in downtown Sao Paulo hotel only erupted once the final result was announced, underscoring the tension that was a hallmark of this race.

    “Four years waiting for this,” said Gabriela Souto, one of the few supporters allowed in due to heavy security.

    Outside Bolsonaro’s home in Rio, ground-zero for his support base, a woman atop a truck delivered a prayer over a speaker, then sang excitedly, trying to generate some energy as the tally grew for da Silva. But supporters decked out in the green and yellow of the flag barely responded. Many perked up when the national anthem played, singing along loudly with hands over their hearts.

    For months, it appeared that da Silva was headed for easy victory as he kindled nostalgia for his presidency, when Brazil’s economy was booming and welfare helped tens of millions join the middle class.

    But while da Silva topped the Oct. 2 first-round elections with 48% of the vote, Bolsonaro was a strong second at 43%, showing opinion polls significantly had underestimated his popularity.

    Bolsonaro’s administration has been marked by incendiary speech, his testing of democratic institutions, his widely criticized handling of the COVID-19 pandemic and the worst deforestation in the Amazon rainforest in 15 years. But he has built a devoted base by defending conservative values and presenting himself as protection from leftist policies that he says infringe on personal liberties and produce economic turmoil. And he shored up support in an election year with vast government spending.

    “We did not face an opponent, a candidate. We faced the machine of the Brazilian state put at his service so we could not win the election,” da Silva told the crowd in Sao Paulo.

    Da Silva built an extensive social welfare program during his tenure that helped lift tens of millions into the middle class. The man universally known as Lula also presided over an economic boom, leaving office with an approval rating above 80%, prompting then U.S. President Barack Obama to call him “the most popular politician on Earth.”

    But he is also remembered for his administration’s involvement in vast corruption revealed by sprawling investigations. Da Silva’s arrest in 2018 kept him out of that year’s race against Bolsonaro, a fringe lawmaker at the time who was an outspoken fan of former U.S. President Donald Trump.

    Da Silva was jailed for for 580 days for corruption and money laundering. His convictions were later annulled by Brazil’s top court, which ruled the presiding judge had been biased and colluded with prosecutors. That enabled da Silva to run for the nation’s highest office for the sixth time.

    Da Silva has pledged to boost spending on the poor, reestablish relationships with foreign governments and take bold action to eliminate illegal clear-cutting in the Amazon rainforest.

    “We will once again monitor and do surveillance in the Amazon. We will fight every illegal activity,” da Silva said in his acceptance speech. “At the same time we will promote sustainable development of the communities of the Amazon.”

    The president-elect has pledged to install a ministry for Brazil’s original peoples, which will be run by an Indigenous person.

    But as da Silva tries to achieve these and other goals, he will be confronted by strong opposition from conservative lawmakers likely to take their cues from Bolsonaro.

    Carlos Melo, a political science professor at Insper University in Sao Paulo, compared the likely political climate to that experienced by former President Dilma Rousseff, da Silva’s hand-picked successor after his second term.

    “Lula’s victory means Brazil is trying to overcome years of turbulence since the reelection of President Dilma Rousseff in 2014. That election never ended; the opposition asked for a recount, she governed under pressure and was impeached two years later,” said Melo. “The divide became huge and then made Bolsonaro.”

    Unemployment this year has fallen to its lowest level since 2015 and, although overall inflation has slowed during the campaign, food prices are increasing at a double-digit rate. Bolsonaro’s welfare payments helped many Brazilians get by, but da Silva has been presenting himself as the candidate more willing to sustain aid going forward and raise the minimum wage.

    In April, he tapped center-right Geraldo Alckmin, a former rival, to be his running mate. It was another key part of an effort to create a broad, pro-democracy front to not just unseat Bolsonaro, but to make it easier to govern.

    “If Lula manages to talk to voters who didn’t vote for him, which Bolsonaro never tried, and seeks negotiated solutions to the economic, social and political crisis we have, and links with other nations that were lost, then he could reconnect Brazil to a time in which people could disagree and still get some things done,” Melo said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Meet the 10 biggest megadonors for the 2022 midterm elections

    Meet the 10 biggest megadonors for the 2022 midterm elections

    [ad_1]

    With four weeks until Election Day, congressional candidates are on track to break midterm fundraising records, having raised nearly $2.5 billion so far this cycle. That’s already 70% more than what was raised during the 2014 cycle and just $200 million shy of the total raised during the full 2018 cycle.

    This cycle has also seen record-shattering outside spending, topping $1 billion through the beginning of October, according to an OpenSecrets estimate.

    The increase in spending and fundraising is due in large part to the involvement of millionaire and billionaire megadonors who have sought to influence the outcome of an election in which both chambers of Congress are in play.

    “When megadonors pump millions of dollars into super PACs, they get to help call the shots,” said Michael Beckel, research director at Issue One, a nonpartisan political reform organization. “Massive spending from a megadonor can influence what issues are talked about on the campaign trail and in Congress.”

    Super PACs are independent political action committees that can raise unlimited sums of money but are not allowed to coordinate with a candidate or campaign. Due to contribution limits, such as those restricting individuals’ candidate contributions to $2,900 per election per candidate, most megadonor spending goes to super PACs.

    More context: These are the basics of campaign finance in 2020 — in two handy charts

    A MarketWatch analysis of Federal Election Commission data through the end of September shows that these 10 business moguls and philanthropists are the biggest federal-level donors this cycle.

    Read: These 3 races could determine whether Democrats or Republicans control the Senate in 2023

    And see: If this seat flips red, Republicans will have ‘probably won a relatively comfortable House majority’

    Top federal-level megadonors this cycle
    Rank

    		 Contributor

    		 Total Contributions

    		 For Republicans

    		 For Democrats

    		 Nonpartisan/Bipartisan
    1

    		 George Soros

    		 $128,782,000

    		 $0

    		 $128,782,000

    		 $0
    2

    		 Ken Griffin

    		 $50,955,800

    		 $50,955,800

    		 $0

    		 $0
    3

    		 Richard Uihlein

    		 $49,117,000

    		 $49,117,000

    		 $0

    		 $0
    4

    		 Sam Bankman-Fried

    		 $39,931,000

    		 $201,000

    		 $37,725,000

    		 $2,005,000
    5

    		 Jeff Yass

    		 $32,754,000

    		 $32,754,000

    		 $0

    		 $0
    6

    		 Peter Thiel

    		 $30,189,000

    		 $30,189,000

    		 $0

    		 $0
    7

    		 Fred Eychaner

    		 $22,343,000

    		 $0

    		 $22,343,000

    		 $0
    8

    		 Stephen Schwarzman

    		 $21,870,000

    		 $21,865,000

    		 $0

    		 $5,000
    9

    		 Larry Ellison

    		 $21,003,000

    		 $21,003,000

    		 $0

    		 $0
    10

    		 Ryan Salame

    		 $18,932,000

    		 $17,432,000

    		 $0

    		 $1,500,000
    Totals:

    		 $415,877,000

    		 $223,517,000

    		 $188,850,000

    		 $3,510,000

    Source: MarketWatch analysis of FEC data as of Sept. 30, 2022
    Note: Partisan breakdown includes non-party affiliated PACs with over 95% of their spending benefitting one party, data has been rounded to the nearest thousand

    Big spending by itself doesn’t automatically mean winning. There have been notable instances of the financially strongest candidates losing (such as crypto-backed House candidate Carrick Flynn earlier this year and billionaire Michael Bloomberg’s self-financed presidential bid) — but money can certainly help put a candidate on the right track.

    “Money alone doesn’t guarantee electoral success, but every candidate prefers to be the one with more money to spend,” Beckel said. He added: “Outside spending on behalf of a candidate isn’t a silver bullet that’s going to guarantee electoral success. But it goes a long way to boosting somebody’s name recognition, and to presenting them as a viable candidate — somebody who has the resources to run a competitive campaign.”

    Information about the spending by the top 10 donors this cycle has been compiled from MarketWatch’s analysis of FEC data and filings, super PAC websites and previously reported comments. Read on to find out who are the top 10 biggest donors this cycle.

    10. Ryan Salame — $19 million

    Ryan Salame, the co-CEO of FTX Digital Markets, a subsidiary of cryptocurrency exchange FTX, founded a hybrid PAC earlier this year called American Dream Federal Action. The vast majority ($15 million) of the $19 million Salame has spent this cycle has gone into bankrolling the PAC, which has spent $2.4 million in independent expenditures supporting Illinois Republican Rep. Rodney Davis, $2 million supporting Republican Senate candidate Katie Britt from Alabama, and $1.2 million each supporting Arkansas GOP Sen. John Boozman and Brad Finstad, a GOP congressional candidate in Minnesota.

    On its website, the PAC describes itself as “organization dedicated to electing forward-looking candidates — those who want to protect America’s long term economic and national security by advancing smart policy decisions now.” A representative for Salame didn’t respond to a request for comment.

    9. Lawrence Ellison — $21 million

    The co-founder of Oracle
    ORCL,
    +0.26%
    has similarly bankrolled a PAC this election cycle — giving a total $20 million to Opportunity Matters Fund Inc. The super PAC has largely held onto its funds so far, recent FEC records show, having $17 million cash on hand as of the end of August. Of the independent expenditures it has made this cycle, it spent the most on Georgia Republican Senate candidate Herschel Walker ($1.3 million), Wisconsin Republican Sen. Ron Johnson ($1.3 million) and North Carolina Senate candidate and current Republican Rep. Ted Budd ($1.1 million). A representative for Ellison didn’t respond to a request for comment.

    8. Stephen Schwarzman — $22 million

    Billionaire Stephen Schwarzman, the CEO of private-equity giant Blackstone
    BX,
    -2.41%    ,
    is the eighth biggest donor at the federal level this cycle. In March, Schwarzman gave $10 million to both the Senate Leadership Fund and Congressional Leadership Fund, super PACs aimed at obtaining a Republican majority in the Senate and House, respectively. A representative for Schwarzman didn’t respond to a request for comment.

    7. Fred Eychaner — $22 million

    Fred Eychaner has also contributed $22 million so far this cycle, but unlike most of the spending on this list, his has been directed toward Democratic causes. The chairman of Chicago-based Newsweb Corporation has given $9 million to the House Majority PAC and $8 million to the Senate Majority PAC, as well as just under $1.5 million to the Democratic National Committee and several hundred thousands to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. A representative for Eychaner didn’t respond to a request for comment.

    6. Peter Thiel — $30 million

    Venture capitalist Peter Thiel was heavily involved in backing Ohio Republican J.D. Vance’s primary bid, giving $15 million in the spring to the Vance-aligned Protect Ohio Values PAC.

    The massive primary investment was “historic” and record-setting, according to Beckel, who added that Thiel’s involvement in the Ohio Senate primary could mark “a new chapter of how mega donors are choosing to play in politics.”

    “I think it’s become clear for a lot of megadonors that there are high stakes to a lot of primaries, and by spending in the primary, where there is typically lower turnout than in say, a statewide general election, they can get a lot of bang for their buck by investing in a primary election,” Beckel added.

    Thiel has indicated that he doesn’t intend to put any more money toward Vance’s bid as he reportedly believes the Ohio candidate is on track to win, and instead will focus his funding on Arizona Republican Blake Masters’ bid to oust Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly in the final weeks leading up to the midterm election.

    Thiel, known for his roles in PayPal
    PYPL,
    -1.69%    ,
    Palantir
    PLTR,
    -0.25%
    and Facebook
    META,
    -3.92%    ,
    has also given a total $15 million to the Masters-aligned PAC, Saving Arizona, with his most recent contribution in July. Both Vance and Masters are venture capitalists, but Masters has worked with Thiel. He served as chief operating officer of Thiel Capital and president of the Thiel Foundation, and he co-authored a book on startups with Thiel in 2014. A representative for Thiel didn’t respond to a request for comment.

    5. Jeff Yass — $33 million

    Options trader Jeff Yass, who founded trading firm Susquehanna International Group, has contributed about $33 million on a federal level this cycle. Yass has given $15 million to the School Freedom Fund, or the equivalent of 97% of the PAC’s total fundraising. The group focuses on the issue of school choice, and its website states that some bureaucrats “hindered the development and education of our youth through school closures, mask mandates, critical race theory, and more.”

    Aside from the School Freedom Fund, Yass’ other biggest contributions are to the conservative Club for Action ($6.5 million), Kentucky Freedom ($5 million), Protect Freedom ($2 million) and Crypto Freedom ($1.9 million). A representative for Yass didn’t respond to a request for comment.

    4. Sam Bankman-Fried — $40 million

    Sam Bankman-Fried, the founder and CEO of FTX, is the main funder behind Protect Our Future PAC, giving it $27 million of the $28 million it raised this cycle. 

    The organization says on its website that it focuses on promoting Democratic candidates championing pandemic preparedness and prevention “so this is the last time in our lifetime, and our children’s lifetimes, that we will face the devastation that has gripped communities across the U.S. since 2020.”

    The group spent more than $10 million supporting Democrat Carrick Flynn’s House bid in Oregon. Flynn lost his primary in May by 18 points despite his massive outside spending advantage. In addition to Flynn, the group has made over $1 million in independent expenditures each supporting Democratic congressional candidates Lucy McBath, a current representative from Georgia; Jasmine Crockett of Texas, Adam Hollier of Michigan, Valerie Foushee of North Carolina and Shontel Brown, a current representative from Ohio.

    Most of the other $10 million Bankman-Fried spent this cycle has gone to the House Majority PAC ($6 million) and the crypto PAC GMI ($2 million).

    While the vast majority of his spending has supported Democratic candidates and causes, Bankman-Fried does not classify himself as an exclusively Democratic donor — for instance he gave $105,000 to the Alabama Conservatives Fund in June and $45,000 to the NRCC in July. 

    He told Politico in August that he is “legitimately worried about doing things that will make people view me as partisan when it’s not how I feel … because I think it both misses what I’m trying to do and makes it harder for me to act constructively.” A representative for the FTX boss didn’t respond to a request for comment.

    3. Richard Uihlein — $49 million

    Richard Uihlein is the founder of the shipping and business supply company Uline, and is a longtime conservative donor. This cycle has seen nearly $50 million in political spending by him, with just over half of it going to Club for Growth Action. Uihlein has also given about $14 million to Restoration PAC, an organization that says it is “dedicated to strengthening the foundations that made America the greatest nation in the world: God, family, education, and community.”

    Uihlein’s next largest contributions are to the conservative Team PAC ($2.5 million) and the Arkansas Patriots Fund ($2.2 million), which earlier this year made ad buys favoring Republican Sen. John Boozman’s primary opponent. A representative for Uihlein didn’t respond to a request for comment.

    2. Ken Griffin — $51 million

    With $51 million in federal-level political spending, Ken Griffin, CEO of hedge fund Citadel, is the second most prolific donor this cycle.

    The biggest beneficiaries are the Republican-aligned Congressional Leadership Fund with $18.5 million in contributions, the Senate Leadership Fund with $10 million and Honor Pennsylvania, a super PAC that backed Republican Dave McCormick’s Senate bid. McCormick lost in the primary to Mehmet Oz by less than a thousand votes. 

    While Griffin spent about $64 million during the last cycle, his $51 million figure this year marks by far the most he has spent during a midterm cycle. During the 2018 cycle, his contributions totaled less than $8 million.

    A spokesperson for Griffin told MarketWatch that Griffin “supports leaders who are committed to protecting the American Dream and pursuing policies that will create a better future for the United States.”

    “The right policies will focus on creating rewarding jobs, prioritizing public safety, and investing in a strong national defense,” his spokesperson said. “Preserving the American Dream will require that every child is well educated, can access great healthcare, and has the opportunity to succeed.”

    1. George Soros — $129 million

    Not one donor comes close to matching the sum that billionaire philanthropist George Soros has contributed this cycle: $129 million. However, much of that money hasn’t actually been put to work this cycle.

    The majority of those on this list have focused their funding on Republican causes, but Soros’ money has gone to Democratic groups — specifically Democracy PAC II, whose $125 million in contributions comprises 99% of its fundraising. The super PAC spent more than $80 million on Democratic groups and candidates during the 2020 election.

    A representative for Soros pointed MarketWatch to a Politico article from January, in which Soros said the $125 million is aimed at supporting pro-democracy “causes and candidates, regardless of political party” who are invested in “strengthening the infrastructure of American democracy: voting rights and civic participation, civil rights and liberties, and the rule of law” and called his contribution a “long-term investment” that will  support political work beyond this year.

    So far this cycle, Democracy PAC has spent very little and holds $113 million in available cash. Contributions the PAC has made this cycle include $5 million to the Senate Majority PAC, $2.5 million to One Georgia and $1 million to both Care in Action and House Majority PAC.

    [ad_2]

    Source link