Why the global inflation problem is bigger than US politics - The Hill

unitedstatepolitics.blogspot.com

Inflation may be the focus of a midterm cycle political blame game, but economists caution the problem — and the most effective solutions — are global. 

Rising prices were a focus of this week’s meeting of the Group of Seven (G-7) major economies. 

The White House said Tuesday it is investing $760 million to combat the effects of high food, fuel and fertilizer prices, and the European Council said the war in Ukraine is leading to steep price increases and that the G-7 needs to “assist the global economy.” 

“We are united and determined to strongly support Ukraine in producing and exporting grain, oil, and other agricultural products and we will foster coordinated initiatives that promote global food security and address the causes of the evolving global food crisis,” the council said.  

In the U.S., inflation stands at a 40-year high of 8.6 percent, weighing on personal expenses and effectively making people poorer.  

Around the world, it is sparking protest movements, driven by a soaring cost of living felt in the price of goods like food and gasoline. 

In the United Kingdom, where inflation is higher than it is in the U.S. — above 9 percent — the biggest rail strike in 30 years has disrupted travel around the country and seen tens of thousands of workers walk off the job demanding more pay. There are also concerns that the rail strike could be the first of many in the country. 

U.K. rail union members “are leading the way for all workers in this country who are sick and tired of having their pay and conditions slashed by a mixture of big business profits and government policy,” union head Mick Lynch said in a statement last week, adding that his group was seeking a “decent pay rise.” 

In South Korea, where inflation surpassed 5 percent for the first time in more than a decade, truckers reached a deal with the government earlier this month after a weeklong strike to get a minimum pay guarantee. This led to production cuts by South Korean steel producer POSCO as well as automaker Hyundai, which said sales are facing “unfavorable external environments.” 

Inflation has also hit a decades-high 5.2 percent in France, where there are concerns over whether there will be a resurgence of the Gilets Jaunes, or Yellow Vest, grassroots protest movement this fall. 

Over the past few months, economic- and inflation-related protests have been reported in India, Ecuador, Indonesia, Ireland, Tunisia, Sri Lanka and Peru, where the government imposed a curfew and enacted various emergency measures after demonstrations turned violent earlier this year. 

“Inflation is not just in the U.S. or in Europe, but it’s also in developing countries — it’s almost everywhere,” Hamid Rashid, head of the global economic monitoring branch of the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, said in an interview. 

This ubiquity means that workers in numerous countries with varying political systems and social dynamics are pushing in the same direction, putting pressure on global labor markets that many central banks are hoping to see loosen.  

In the U.S., having a looser labor market, or slightly higher unemployment, would take some of the pressure off companies to keep raising their prices in order to turn a profit for their investors, some economists argue.  

But with more than 11 million open jobs and unemployment levels in the U.S. at 3.6 percent — which is still not as low as the pre-pandemic level of 3.5 percent — a looser labor market may just not be in the cards.  

This means that the “supply-side interventions” — measures aimed at specific industries and pipeline bottlenecks, such as those in the shipping industry — that some economists are recommending to fight inflation may not be as effective as policymakers in the U.S. or around the world hope.  

“When we think of the supply side, we tend to focus on supply chains. Supply chains are part of the supply side, but the most important element of the supply side is the labor supply,” Rashid said. “There are a lot of uncertainties in the labor supply, and that compounds a lot of supply chain issues, from packaging to transportation to warehouses to port clearance. Don’t underestimate the role that labor supply plays in most economies.”  

With the tight job market in the U.S. and workers able to demand higher pay both here and in other countries, the global supply side of the economy may take a while to sync up.   

That’s why economists are seeing increased international cooperation as an important additional measure in the fight against inflation. This cooperation can take many forms, including coordinated central bank policies, conforming regulatory frameworks and supply chain improvements.  

One unexpected source of cooperation, at least among Western powers, has been the war in Ukraine, which economists note has brought the G-7 much closer together.   

“Why do we have this cooperation happening right now? First, recognize really it’s Western cooperation. The G-7 is really leading this,” Abraham Newman, a professor in the Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, said during an online event on economic globalization hosted by the Brookings Institution. “Within the G-7, you just see this complete belief that this is a legitimate exercise.” 

Despite the global nature of inflation, the war of words between Democrats and Republicans over who is to blame for the high cost of living rages on. 

“The White House and congressional Democrats are in denial about how their policies fueled inflation,” House Republicans on the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee said in a statement Monday, referring to the Biden administration’s $1.9 trillion stimulus package. 

A study from the San Francisco Federal Reserve found in March that direct fiscal stimulus related to the pandemic — which went out under both the Trump and Biden administrations — “may have contributed to about 3 percentage points of the rise in U.S. inflation through the end of 2021.”  

Democrats, meanwhile, have been focusing on corporate price gouging and market concentration in the private sector as drivers of inflation. President Biden earlier this month railed against oil companies for profiting while gas prices soared. 

And Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) introduced a bill in March that would tax windfall profits of corporations, a similar measure to ones enacted during the 20th century in times of war. 

Wall Street braces for turmoil Ginni Thomas lawyer questions need for her to testify before Jan. 6 panel

“The American people are sick and tired of the unprecedented corporate greed that exists all over this country. They are sick and tired of being ripped-off by corporations making record-breaking profits while working families are forced to pay outrageously high prices for gas, rent, food, and prescription drugs,” Sanders said.   

Regardless of whether inflation is a global issue, Americans expect action on the inflation front and are likely to express that expectation at the polls in November.  

A NewsNation-DDHQ poll released last week found 97 percent of U.S. voters are very or somewhat concerned about inflation and inflation ranks as the top issue for 72 percent.

Adblock test (Why?)

"politic" - Google News
June 29, 2022 at 04:19PM
https://ift.tt/URIETiL

Why the global inflation problem is bigger than US politics - The Hill
"politic" - Google News
https://ift.tt/vR9twqQ
https://ift.tt/Mkj9q3y

A stunning moment in American history decades in the making will reshape politics - CNN

unitedstatepolitics.blogspot.com

(CNN)The day that remade America was decades in the making.

The Supreme Court's overturning of a woman's right to an abortion on Friday was a legal, political and societal thunderbolt that merits the overused term "historic" because it will change life in multiple ways, many still unknown.

But while shocking, especially since it goes against majority public opinion on the issue, it was not a surprise. The ruling was the result of a staggeringly successful generational quest by the conservative movement at all political levels, from grassroots social and religious activists through the founding leaders of a right-wing legal establishment to successive Republican presidents.

Democrats working through phases of disbelief, fury and pain on Friday vowed to fight back. But their mission, like that of their conservative vanquishers, could last decades or even longer in pursuit of a distant goal.

"Make no mistake: This decision is the culmination of a deliberate effort over decades to upset the balance of our law. It's a realization of an extreme ideology and a tragic error by the Supreme Court," President Joe Biden said. But he added: "This is not over."

Another top Democrat, Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, said she was "spitting mad."

"We've got tools. We're going to use them in November. We're going to make sure that we elect enough people who believe in democracy that we can pass Roe v. Wade and make it the law of the land again," she told CNN. "Only this time, we'll do it by statute and enforce it."

JUST WATCHED

'I'm spitting mad': Elizabeth Warren shares anger over ruling in interview

Replay

More Videos ...

MUST WATCH

'I'm spitting mad': Elizabeth Warren shares anger over ruling in interview 03:52

But the generational nature of the struggle to come means it's not likely to be septuagenarians like Biden and Warren who win it.

The prospects of an immediate political riposte are also unlikely, given the Democrats' current political woes. If the outpouring of liberal emotion is to coalesce into a counter-movement to restore abortion rights, it will require the same level of multi-decade dedication shown by conservatives. It will call for a network of political groups all pushing in the same direction and for national politicians with the talent to turn out voters on the issue using their time in office to build a competing legal and political structure effective at pressing change. And it will have to begin as a rearguard action after a stunning defeat as multiple conservative states pass or implement flash laws to outlaw abortion for millions of women.

Abortion is a deeply personal issue for many Americans that involves choices about when life begins and an individual's rights to make a decision about their own body. It becomes a sensitive and divisive political issue when it comes to the questions of whether and how government can dictate these moral and legal questions and what the Constitution permits.

JUST WATCHED

CNN commentator challenged on her religion and abortion stance. See her response

Replay

More Videos ...

MUST WATCH

CNN commentator challenged on her religion and abortion stance. See her response 06:32

So just as liberals may now be newly fired up, the anti-abortion movement will not rest. Some activists are already striving to elect a Republican-led Congress and president who would outlaw abortion not just in conservative states but also in the blue ones that immediately vowed Friday to protect a woman's right to choose. And while Biden can carp about Republican extremists and liberals complain about Republican presidents failing to win the popular vote, the conservative movement looks just as likely to mobilize to use the US political system to preserve its win as Democrats are to try to overturn it.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who did as much as any Republican leader to transform the Supreme Court, praised the years of conservative campaigning that had led to Friday's decision.

"Millions of Americans have spent half a century praying, marching and working toward today's historic victories for the rule of law and for innocent life. I have been proud to stand with them throughout our long journey and I share their joy today," the Kentucky Republican said.

Arkansas Republican Gov. Asa Hutchinson tweeted: "... we are able now to protect life."

A cascade of consequences

Friday's victory was so total for conservatives and will be so difficult for Democrats to reverse not only because of its immediate legal consequence, but also because of the cascade of effects it will unleash, some not even connected to abortion.

Anti-abortion activists are celebrating not just potentially millions of future pregnancies that will go to term, but a profound turn in the country's policies as well, which will change what it means to live in America for men as well as women.

But at the same time, tens of millions of women went to bed Friday evening with one fewer constitutional right than they had woken up with. As conservative states begin to outlaw abortion entirely, the ledger of Americans' rights will depend on where they live or conceive. For apparently the first time in the country's historic march, the Supreme Court has taken away a previously enshrined constitutional right. The starkly literal reading of the Constitution by the court's conservative majority in this case -- as well as in other judicial haymakers on guns and religion this week -- beckons an era of societal upheaval.

If one constitutional right can be wiped out, why not others? Already, and despite the assurances of several of the court's conservatives, same-sex marriage, contraception and even in vitro fertilization treatments are beginning to look more vulnerable.

This week's rulings on abortion and guns have cemented the court's new conservative majority as a staggeringly powerful force in American life -- one with the audacity to make far-reaching change. Because this upheaval comes from a bench of deeply religious conservatives, it is certain to trigger confrontations with more secular, diverse sectors of society. These factors, and the court's recent opinions conflicting with majority public opinion, mean that America's vicious ideological divide is all but certain to deepen. But the justices are insulated from politics by lifetime appointments.

JUST WATCHED

'It's so startling': Joan Biskupic reacts to Roe v Wade overturn

Replay

More Videos ...

MUST WATCH

'It's so startling': Joan Biskupic reacts to Roe v Wade overturn 00:50

A triumph for Trump and McConnell

If it wasn't the case already, Friday solidified the presidency of Donald Trump, who helped tip the court to the right, as one of deep, historic consequence. It validated the marriage of convenience between the ethically challenged former President and evangelicals and social conservatives, which was rooted in the promise that he would nominate anti-abortion justices.

And it confirms McConnell, whose contentious maneuverings unlocked the path to the conservative majority, as one of the most meaningful political figures of all time. Trump and McConnell's work -- in the shape of three comparatively young justices -- will be changing the face of America for long after they are gone. The nature of the Senate, which allows Republicans to wield considerable power despite representing far fewer people in more rural states, will make it difficult for Democrats to transform majority opinion into a law codifying Roe v. Wade.

JUST WATCHED

Roe v. Wade is overturned. How does this affect you?

Replay

More Videos ...

MUST WATCH

Roe v. Wade is overturned. How does this affect you? 02:02

In the short term, Friday's decision could play into the midterm elections in November, which House Speaker Nancy Pelosi vowed to turn on the abortion decision. But with voters hammered by high inflation and record gasoline prices, they may be focused on more pressing economic concerns -- especially in the places where Democrats need to make gains in order to hold on to their narrow majorities.

The new reality on abortion is certain to add even more intensity to the 2024 presidential campaign with Democrats facing the possibility of a Republican monopoly on power.

And as they were in the pandemic, governors and state legislators will become vital players on a fearsomely divisive national issue, as some hurriedly pass laws to outlaw the right to end a pregnancy and others fight to preserve it. There are likely to be disputes over the power of states to stop residents seeking abortions from traveling to states where the procedure is still allowed.

Big business is about to be embroiled in a fight over the rights of female employees that could affect the locations of headquarters and will require firms to consider how to deal with new health care conundrums. The conservative majority suggested in its opinion that sending abortion back to the states to decide will let democracy work it out. But nothing in the polarized state of American politics suggests this is anything more than wishful thinking. Abortion is likely to drive an already torn nation further into self-estrangement.

A historic campaign to change America

In many ways, Friday's tumultuous events were the right's answer to an almost as epic summer week seven years ago, when the court seemed to launch a period of liberal ascendency by saving the Affordable Care Act and ruling that same-sex marriage was constitutional. Those heady few days, however, helped spark a backlash that led to Trump's presidency and, ultimately, to this week's momentous opinions.

But the genesis of this moment came long before, beginning to build soon after the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision the court just overturned. It took a web of alliances and interlocking campaigns by religious conservatives, activist groups, fundraisers, grassroots lawmakers, faith leaders, anti-abortion marchers, national political leaders, talk radio hosts, right-wing media figures and Republican presidents over decades to come to fruition. It involved years of confirmations that turned the federal judiciary to the right, then de facto alliances between jurists and conservative politicians in the states to bring cases weakening and eventually ending the federal right to an abortion up through the courts.

And it took Supreme Court nominees misleading Senate confirmation hearings, with a wink and a nod, on their opposition to overturning precedent to create the majority in the marble-pillared Supreme Court chamber that would finish the job.

The movement was especially energized by the conservative renaissance that President Ronald Reagan engineered. As California governor, he had signed a law allowing some exceptions to abortion but changed his views after a long period of soul searching and after spotting an opening to use the issue to electrify the conservative movement. In February 1984, Reagan wrote in his diary about a conversation with a woman in Peoria, Illinois, who had broken with Republicans because of his stance on the issue.

"I made my pitch that there were 2 people's rights involved in abortion — the mother's & the unborn child," Reagan wrote, spelling out a message that fortified the mission even after his death.

The next Republican president, George H.W. Bush, appointed Justice Clarence Thomas, who waited in silence for decades on the bench for his hardline conservative jurisprudence to dominate the court. He published a concurrent opinion on Friday that read like a rallying call for activists and conservative states to challenge other precedents, on same-sex marriage and contraception.

President Bill Clinton kept conservatives at bay for eight years and his nominee, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, became an icon for women's rights during her long tenure. But her death in 2020, while Trump was in the White House, opened the way for a solidifying of the 5-4 conservative majority that overturned Roe on Friday.

The next President, George W. Bush, did his bit for an abortion earthquake still 17 years in the future by nominating Justice Samuel Alito, who penned Friday's majority opinion.

The Obama presidency featured then-Majority Leader McConnell's blockade of the President's final nominee, Merrick Garland (now Biden's attorney general), which allowed newly elected Trump to elevate another member of Friday's majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch. And then McConnell reversed his hastily created rule against confirming justices before elections, which he'd used to keep Garland off the court, to install another anti-abortion justice in Amy Coney Barrett days before Trump lost in 2020. Without his efforts, the fifth vote to reverse Roe would not have existed, since Chief Justice John Roberts, while opposing abortion, signaled support for a less radical course.

JUST WATCHED

OB-GYN explains the far-reaching effects of Roe ruling

Replay

More Videos ...

MUST WATCH

OB-GYN explains the far-reaching effects of Roe ruling 03:34

These are all fateful presidential decisions and congressional battles fought over decades. They are a taste of what Democrats face if they want to reverse Friday's decision and the coming era of conservative jurisprudence. Their long haul will be complicated by the fact that Gorsuch, Barrett and Justice Brett Kavanaugh are only in their 50s and figure to have years of service on the court in which to further solidify Friday's ruling.

For abortion rights activists, meanwhile, the next few presidential elections just got even more critical and will test whether complacency among liberals about the supposed inviolability of the right to end a pregnancy will begin to change.

Almost every Republican campaign, up and down the ballot, has long included a push for ending abortion. The issue was a unifying force in Republican politics as activists drove toward the single, distant goal that was realized on Friday.

Democrats have yet to prove that they have the discipline, organizational capacity or rising political stars to mount a similar fight of their own.

Adblock test (Why?)

"politic" - Google News
June 25, 2022 at 06:44PM
https://ift.tt/cf2UsIl

A stunning moment in American history decades in the making will reshape politics - CNN
"politic" - Google News
https://ift.tt/OLejsg4
https://ift.tt/TaeLfwQ

Political Lessons for Democrats in a Post-Roe America - The New Yorker

unitedstatepolitics.blogspot.com

Our Columnists

Political Lessons for Democrats in a Post-Roe America

Protesters gathered outside the U.S. Supreme Court, following its decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.Photograph by Tasos Katopodis / Getty

The Supreme Court decisions on abortion and gun laws have been a long time coming. Arguably, their roots go back to the aftermath of the Roe v. Wade opinion, handed down on January 22, 1973. In the seventies, conservative activists, business interests, and foundations were already inveighing against the liberal jurisprudence of the Warren and Burger Courts, which had expanded the rights of women, Black Americans, and other groups. Initially, conservative activism focussed on trying to limit government regulation and downsize the administrative state, a project that had limited public appeal, but the 7–2 Roe ruling changed this dynamic. By affirming that the Constitution implied a right to abortion, Roe created an alliance of convenience between economic conservatives and social conservatives—a much larger group—which has held up to this day, sometimes uneasily, and which is reflected in the composition of the current Court.

The first lesson Democrats can take from the Court’s latest rulings is that persistence pays off. When the Court reaffirmed a right to abortion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, in 1992, the conservative activists didn’t give up. Groups such as the Federalist Society intensified their efforts, making staunch rightist views and allegiance a litmus test for any prospective Court appointment—a test that, in 2005, Harriet Miers, the White House counsel to George W. Bush, failed to meet. Miers’s alternative, Samuel Alito, is now a key member of the ultra-conservative bloc that dominates the Court.

A second lesson from the conservative counter-revolution is that it sometimes pays to steal your opponents’ arguments, even when that involves jettisoning any semblance of intellectual consistency. In attacking liberal rulings, the conservatives originally relied on the doctrine of judicial restraint, lambasting an “activist Court” for going far beyond the intentions of the Founders. But some leading conservative lawyers—the most prominent being Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas—also took another tack. Where convenient, they adopted the liberals’ language of rights, claiming to have discovered hitherto undiscovered ones residing in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, including the right to carry guns for self-defense.

“The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia,” Scalia wrote in the 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller ruling. Last week, in trying to justify striking down a New York gun law that has been on the books for more than a century, Thomas extended Scalia’s argument, claiming that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect “an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.” (Good luck finding that clause in your old college textbook on the Constitution.)

Having claimed that the Constitution prevents New York and other states from forcing people to get a special license to carry a firearm, the Court, the very next day, turned around and said the Constitution also implies that the decision on how to regulate decisions to end pregnancies should be left to the states. Evidently, consistency really is the hobgoblin of small minds—the heirs to Scalia and Robert Bork don’t bother themselves with it.

The third lesson from the past few days is that brazenness and ruthlessness pay off, or, as Mitch McConnell might put it, “There are no absolute rules of conduct, either in peace or war. Everything depends on circumstances.” Actually, this quotation comes from Leon Trotsky’s autobiography, but he and McConnell aren’t so far apart. In the past few decades, the G.O.P. has turned into a party of permanent counter-revolution, and its leaders wage this campaign with a wanton disregard for established rules and norms that the old Bolshevik would have admired.

Exhibit A is McConnell’s refusal to hold confirmation hearings for Merrick Garland in 2016, purportedly on the grounds that he had been nominated during the last year of a Presidency. That unprecedented maneuver stole a seat on the Court for the Republicans. Four years later, in the last year of the Trump Presidency, McConnell shepherded the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett, a Catholic member of a charismatic Christian group and a fervent opponent of abortion. On Friday, after Barrett’s vote had helped overturn Roe, McConnell hailed the ruling as “an historic victory for the Constitution.”

With the midterms slightly more than four months away, Democrats are hoping that anger over last week’s rulings will increase turnout and win over some wavering voters. “This fall, Roe is on the ballot,” Joe Biden said on Friday. With the overturning of Roe coming on top of the gutting of state gun laws, this response didn’t seem entirely adequate. Whatever happens in November, there is no immediate prospect of a change in the Court. Thomas is seventy-four and could conceivably stay on the bench for another decade. Alito, who wrote the contentious opinion overturning Roe, is seventy-two. Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Barrett—the three Trump appointees—are all in their fifties, and will likely still be on the Court twenty years from now.

Given this dire situation, it may pay Democrats to ask themselves what Republicans would do if roles were reversed. History suggests that they wouldn’t sit back and hope for a rescue by the voters. They would immediately go into attack mode: create a broad alliance of groups united in opposition to the Court, subjugate intellectual consistency to winning, and ruthlessly exploit any legislative or procedural powers they possess.

In theory, a Democrat-controlled Congress could now pass legislation restoring a version of Roe, and challenge the Court to strike it down. Given that the Party has only fifty votes in the Senate, it would have to amend or abolish the filibuster to do this, and, on Friday, Bernie Sanders reiterated his call for this very course of action. Referring to the G.O.P.’s elimination of the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees in 2017, which paved the way for the confirmation of Trump’s three appointees, Sanders said, “If Republicans can end the filibuster to install right-wing judges to overturn Roe v. Wade, Democrats can and must end the filibuster, codify Roe v. Wade, and make abortion legal and safe.”

Another option is to exploit Congress’s power to expand or reduce the Supreme Court—a power it has exercised six times before—and appoint more members to nullify the right bloc’s majority. At the start of the Biden Administration, some progressive House Democrats proposed legislation to do this, but it failed to gain the support of Nancy Pelosi, the House Speaker, or of the Administration. Resorting to a time-honored way of avoiding doing anything, the White House created an outside commission to review possible reforms to the Court. (The commission eventually issued a report that said, “The risks of Court expansion are considerable.”)

On Friday, some progressive Democrats, including Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, resurrected the idea of expanding the Court. But accomplishing this goal would also require amending the filibuster, and it seems highly unlikely that Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema would go along with it. In a pattern that has become depressingly familiar, the Democrats appear to be stuck—with an unrepresentative political system, a stacked Court, and their own divisions conspiring against them. But, if they are to prevent an activist high court from further tearing the country apart, they will need to overcome these challenges and play hardball. If they want some pointers on how it’s done, they can look across the aisle. ♦

Adblock test (Why?)

"politic" - Google News
June 26, 2022 at 11:54PM
https://ift.tt/rfa7Wjb

Political Lessons for Democrats in a Post-Roe America - The New Yorker
"politic" - Google News
https://ift.tt/OLejsg4
https://ift.tt/TaeLfwQ

Trump Moved More Than $1 Million From His Political Groups To His Private Business After Losing The Election - Forbes

unitedstatepolitics.blogspot.com

Donald Trump never stopped raising funds from his supporters after the 2020 presidential race. His companies, meanwhile, continued to charge his political outfits for goods and services. As a result, the former president has been able to convert about $1.3 million of donor money into business revenue since he lost the 2020 election, according to a review of the latest federal filings.

In the months immediately following the election, much of the money came via Trump’s official campaign committee, Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. On December 1, 2020, the committee paid $38,000 in rent to Trump Tower Commercial LLC, the entity through which the former president owns space inside Trump Tower. Fifteen days later, another $38,000 of rent moved from the campaign committee to that same LLC. The committee also made two payments of $3,000 at about the same time to an entity named Trump Restaurants LLC. The former president, who is worth an estimated $3 billion, also owns 100% of that company, according to an analysis of documents his business submitted to federal and local officials while he was president. Between the election and the end of 2020, Trump’s campaign committee handed over $113,000 to Trump’s business.

In the New Year, Trump didn’t really shut down his campaign committee. Instead, he renamed it, turning it into the Make America Great Again PAC. Beginning on January 4, 2021, that PAC started funneling money to the Trump Organization, handing $8,000 to the Trump Hotel Collection by the end of the month. The group also wrote rent checks to the same entities that the campaign had been previously paying—$38,000 to Trump Tower Commercial LLC every month or so and often another $3,000 to Trump Restaurants LLC. It’s unclear why the Make America Great Again PAC still needed to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars of rent in 2021, given that the election took place in 2020. Representatives of the PAC and the Trump Organization did not respond to requests for comment. By the end of February 2022, the Make America Great Again PAC had paid $526,000 to Trump’s companies, according to the review of Federal Election Commission filings.

---

It’s unclear why the Make America Great Again PAC still needed to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars of rent in 2021, given that the election took place in 2020.

---

While the campaign committee and its rebranded offshoot cut big rent checks, other Trump political groups splurged at the former president’s hotels. Nine days after the election, a joint-fundraising committee named Trump Victory, which gathered funds for the Trump campaign and several state-level Republican groups, paid $294,000 to the Trump Hotel Collection. Smaller sums followed. Trump Victory ended up spending more than $300,000 from the election to February 2021, when it last recorded paying a Trump property.

Other entities picked up the slack. In June 2021, a joint-fundraising committee that collects money for Trump and South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham paid Trump’s hotels $22,000. Six months later, a different joint-fundraising committee handed Mar-a-Lago, Trump’s Palm Beach club, $34,000.

Then there was Trump’s leadership PAC, Save America. Leadership PACs often allow politicians to dole out money to other candidates they support. In Trump’s case, the group also served as a vehicle for directing donor money into his business. From February 2021 to May 2022, Trump’s leadership PAC spent $213,000 at Trump properties.

The Save America payments generated some press recently, as the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6^th Attack on the United States Capitol took note of the group’s operations. The former president told supporters that they could donate to something called the Official Election Defense Fund, even though that fund apparently didn’t exist, according to the committee. Most of the money instead went to Save America, which in turn paid a small portion to Trump’s business. “Not only was there the Big Lie,” concluded Representative Zoe Lofgren, a Democrat from California. “There was the big rip off.”

Adblock test (Why?)

"politic" - Google News
June 26, 2022 at 07:00PM
https://ift.tt/4hTDCr3

Trump Moved More Than $1 Million From His Political Groups To His Private Business After Losing The Election - Forbes
"politic" - Google News
https://ift.tt/OLejsg4
https://ift.tt/TaeLfwQ

After year of historic political gains, Black women continue push toward governorships - CNN

unitedstatepolitics.blogspot.com

(CNN)In 2018, Stacey Abrams came within 1.4 percentage points of clinching the governor's mansion in Georgia. Her stinging loss to Republican Brian Kemp is still on the hearts of many of her most fervent supporters some four years later. Though Democrats across the country face a difficult midterm map this year, Abrams is likely their best hope to elevate a Black woman as governor for the first time in the nation's 246-year history.

"I am proud to be a Black woman whose experiences and whose qualifications and whose efforts can result in me becoming the governor of Georgia. It matters what we see," she told CNN on the campaign trail earlier this spring.

As a record number of Black women run for statewide office and Congress in the 2022 election cycle following the historic elections of Vice President Kamala Harris and more recently Virginia Lt. Gov. Winsome Sears, there is renewed hope that one of the candidates will finally ascend to the governorship in 2022.

So far in the 2022 midterm election cycle, a record 53 Black women have filed to run for statewide office with at least eight of them still in the running to be the first in US history to be elected to the governorship, according to a tally by the Center for American Women in Politics at Rutgers University (CAWP). There are also 145 Black women who have filed or indicated that they will run for Congress, CAWP told CNN -- a record after 130 Black women filed to run in the 2020 election.

But amid the optimism, challenges persist for these women running for governor, the majority of them Democrats. Some of them are running in deep-red states and face massive fundraising disadvantages against popular incumbents.

They also face a tough political season as inflation, high gas prices and President Joe Biden's low approval ratings threaten Democrats' narrow majorities in Congress. And yet many of them are committed to seeing their race through to the end, saying that the time for Black women to come to the forefront in statewide races is now.

Abrams said not only is she ready to be Georgia's next chief executive, but her candidacy speaks to the importance of representation.

"I grew up in a community where I did not see people who looked like me who are expected to be governor or mayor or the CEO of a company. My responsibility is to declare what is possible, but my obligation is to work to make it so," she said.

A former state House minority leader who did not have a large following outside of Georgia four years ago, Abrams is now one of the most popular and influential Democrats in the country. And her campaign has more resources this time around, according to a former aide.

"What has changed about her campaign is, simply, that they have more resources. So they have a larger budget, and they have a bigger spotlight," said Abigail Collazo, a spokeswoman for Abrams' campaign in 2018.

Abrams' campaign had $7.2 million in the bank as of January 31, according to a February campaign filing -- significantly more than the $461,000 she reported in cash on hand at the same point four years ago. As of April 30, her campaign reported raising more than $20 million and had more than $8 million in the bank.

'I didn't see the support that you would typically see'

While Abrams has overcome fundraising hurdles and stands out as a candidate who could potentially win in the fall, other Black female gubernatorial candidates face a steeper battle in mostly red states.

They include former Oklahoma state Sen. Connie Johnson, who faces state superintendent of public instruction and former Republican Joy Hofmeister in Tuesday's Democratic primary; Deidre DeJear and Yolanda Flowers, the Democratic nominees in Iowa and Alabama, respectively; Democrat Carnita Atwater and independent Constance Every in Tennessee; and independent Deirdre Gilbert in Texas. And in Democratic-leaning Illinois, Beverly Miles is challenging Gov. J.B. Pritzker in the Democratic primary Tuesday.

DeJear, a businesswoman, and other candidates told CNN that fundraising has been challenging.

"We've been able to do a lot with a little and I think folks are accustomed to seeing women of color and women doing that, doing a lot with a little," said DeJear, whose campaign reported $419,000 in the bank in a filing earlier this month -- a haul dwarfed by Reynolds' $4.8 million. "But if we don't have to stretch ourselves that thin by having a fully resourced campaign, the sky's the limit."

Democrat Deidre DeJear, left, and Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds, right.

She said it was hard to fundraise after launching her campaign in August because of local races taking place at the same time and the focus on Biden's Build Back Better priorities, adding, "I didn't see the support that you would typically see from a race, coupled with the fact that I am a Black woman."

This is DeJear's second bid for statewide office. She unsuccessfully ran for secretary of state in 2018 at the age of 32 but made history as the first Black candidate to be nominated by a major political party for a statewide office in Iowa. She pledges to improve the state's education system and access to mental health care if she is elected governor.

A poll by the Des Moines Register/Mediacom published in March found Reynolds leading DeJear 51% to 43%.

Some candidates also say a lack of support from the Democratic Party has been a hurdle.

Johnson said she was disappointed in the state's Democratic leadership for not supporting a candidate "who has made the most significant policy recommendation of this century with regard to cannabis in Oklahoma."

Oklahoma Democratic Party Chair Alicia Andrews told CNN, "Our rules are we don't endorse in the primary."

The Barbara Lee Family Foundation, a nonpartisan research group focused on women in politics, has consistently found that voters have been more comfortable sending women to the state legislature than they have been to executive offices.

Kira Sanbonmatsu, a senior scholar at CAWP, said statewide races pose acute challenges for candidates of color.

"Historically, Black women haven't been recognized as viable candidates for these offices, and then their absence in these offices make it harder to break in the next cycle," Sanbonmatsu said.

"Informal gatekeepers," from donors to state party leaders, are often standing in the way of Black progress, she added.

Connie Johnson, left, and Joy Hofmeister, right, are both running for governor in Oklahoma.

"Before you would even throw your hat in the ring, you might test the waters, and try to get the nod from different sources, power brokers in the state. I think that's one area where Black women have been overlooked," Sanbonmatsu said.

When asked if the bleak midterm map Democrats are facing nationally is an added challenge for these candidates, Sanbonmatsu said it depends on the state.

"We do have differences there in terms of party dominance in different parts of the country. But absolutely, Black women candidates, like all candidates, are affected by partisan swings," she said.

Melanie Campbell, president and CEO of the National Coalition on Black Civic Participation, told CNN it has been harder for women of color to get support.

"When you look at any study around candidates and all that, it is, whether you are an incumbent, as a Black woman or other woman of color, it's still harder for them to get the resources," Campbell said. "So, it's a systemic problem that we are facing but ... in some places I think there is a potential for it to get better because the more that we run, the more that we push, the more that we crack those barriers, it will show us we can move and make more progress."

After more than a year on the campaign trail in Massachusetts, Danielle Allen ended her bid for governor in February shortly after state Attorney General Maura Healey entered the race.

While Allen acknowledged the challenges Black women -- and women in general -- face when running for governor, she said she was happy the Democratic Governors Association (DGA) doesn't pick sides in primaries and found its advice to be helpful to her campaign.

"I'm very proud of the fact that in the wake of my running for office, three more Black women chose to run for statewide office in Massachusetts, and all three of them have made it onto the ballot," Allen said.

'Black women have a voice'

In ruby-red South Carolina, which has not elected a Democrat to the governor's mansion since 1998, state Sen. Mia McLeod ran for governor as a critic of what she described as the "old guard" of state politics and on a platform that included better protections and pay for working people.

State Sen. Mia McLeod

McLeod, who has served in the South Carolina legislature since 2011, told CNN she has a long track record of winning elections despite well-funded Republican opposition. But her winning streak was blunted earlier this month after she lost to former US Rep. Joe Cunningham in the Democratic gubernatorial primary.

Before her defeat, McLeod suggested her clear-eyed vision about her own electability was not shared by the mainstream media or the national Democratic Party apparatus.

But she acknowledged the political landscape has changed in some ways.

Jaime Harrison's run for US Senate in 2020 -- in which he shattered fundraising records before losing to GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham by 10 points -- offered a silver lining for future Black statewide candidates.

"We had at least a million registered voters who didn't vote and yet Jaime received more votes than any other Democrat who has run. The numbers are there, we just have to engage and mobilize voters to get them to the polls," McLeod said.

It's a strategy Abrams' campaign employed in 2018 with a strong focus on registering new voters and energizing and turning out base Democrats.

The DGA was the largest investor in that 2018 effort, spending over $4 million to help Abrams. This cycle, the DGA has contributed $1 million to One Georgia, Abrams' leadership committee. Separately, a DGA-affiliated group, America Works USA, said it invested $1 million on a nonpartisan advocacy campaign in March that focused on educating Georgians on policy issues.

Yolanda Flowers, left, defeated Malika Sanders-Fortier, right, in the Democratic primary in Alabama's governor's race.

While the DGA does not endorse in primaries, the group acknowledged it is aware of the general criticism of the largely White Democratic Party apparatus and suggested it is working to address concerns. The organization said it engages candidates from the moment they launch runs to offer political and financial expertise as well as access to donors.

"We know that Black women candidates in particular face huge obstacles in their campaign and we feel that there's more that can be done across the board to address that. The DGA feels really strongly about being part of the solution," DGA executive director Noam Lee said.

In Alabama, Flowers made history this month when she won the Democratic nod for governor in a runoff, becoming the first Black gubernatorial nominee for a major party in the state. Flowers, who is a heavy underdog against Republican incumbent Kay Ivey, told CNN her campaign has "struggled a lot" financially, but she said the lack of money hasn't stopped her drive or her belief that her presence in the governor's race is essential.

"It means that Black women have a voice. We have been used for so long," she said when asked about the record number of Black women running for governor. "This is the time. I see God raising us up and not just Black women. Women."

Adblock test (Why?)

"politic" - Google News
June 26, 2022 at 03:09AM
https://ift.tt/nBxjvmI

After year of historic political gains, Black women continue push toward governorships - CNN
"politic" - Google News
https://ift.tt/XjEGTKz
https://ift.tt/trgPLyq