Category: Politics

Categories
Politics

Democrats and Activists Deal with the Filibuster After a Defeat on Voting Rights

Democrats and Activists Focus on the Filibuster After a Defeat on Voting Rights

For Democrats, the only way to break their voting rights legislation free of Republican opposition is by changing the Senate’s filibuster rules — an institution-shaking step that so far remains out of reach. But while the filibuster is proving hard to kill, it has been wounded.

The unanimous Republican refusal to allow the Senate to open a debate sought by every Democrat on the expansive elections and ethics measure — coupled with the recent filibuster of other legislation with bipartisan support — has armed opponents with fresh evidence of how the tactic can be employed to give the minority veto power over the majority.

Democrats and activists say the increasing Republican reliance on the filibuster will only intensify calls to jettison it and potentially bring about critical mass for a rules change as Democrats remain determined to pass some form of the elections measure and other parts of their agenda opposed by Republicans.

“I think as people see them stopping more things, minds might change,” Senator Amy Klobuchar, Democrat of Minnesota and one of the chief sponsors of the voting bill, said on Wednesday.

Ms. Klobuchar, who leads the Rules Committee, is planning to conduct a field hearing on voting rights in Georgia to build public support for the legislation, choosing a state where Republican lawmakers have put in place restrictive voting rules after sustaining election losses.

The White House, which has been criticized for not engaging aggressively enough on voting rights, is promising more from President Biden on the issue next week, though Mr. Biden, a senator for 36 years, has not explicitly endorsed eliminating the filibuster.

But to curb the power of the filibuster through a rules change, all 50 Democrats would have to agree to do so on the floor, and so far Senators Joe Manchin III of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona have expressed strong public opposition to doing that. Ms. Sinema’s latest pronouncement came in a Washington Post op-ed published just before this week’s procedural vote, much to the frustration of some of her colleagues.

Other Democrats also remain reluctant to make significant changes to the filibuster, though they are much less outspoken than their two colleagues. One of them, Senator Angus King, a Maine independent who votes with Democrats and has previously voiced openness to changing the filibuster rule, said on Wednesday that doing so still felt premature.

“I don’t think we are done trying to find a solution,” Mr. King said, referring to long-shot attempts to lure Republicans to support a compromise on voting legislation. “We need to give them another chance to see how they feel about democracy.”

As they regroup, Democrats involved in shaping the voting rights measure agreed the next step was to produce a narrower version incorporating some of the changes sought by Mr. Manchin that their party could then rally around. That willingness to accept elements of Mr. Manchin’s proposal won his support on Tuesday for beginning debate on the legislation, allowing Democrats to present a unified front.

Senator Jeff Merkley, Democrat of Oregon and a chief author of the elections bill, said Democrats and Mr. Manchin could then try anew to recruit Republicans behind the revised bill — a prospect he acknowledged was unlikely to succeed.

Multiple Republicans have said they cannot see themselves backing any Democratic proposal imposing new voting rules on states. Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the minority leader, has drawn a firm line against cooperating with Democrats and most Republicans will be very reluctant to cross him, counting on Mr. Manchin and Ms. Sinema to keep their commitment not to alter the filibuster rules requiring 60 votes to proceed on legislation.

“If that fails,” Mr. Merkley said on Wednesday about new outreach to Republicans, “then the 50 of us who want to defend our Constitution, defend the right to vote, stop billionaires from buying elections have to be in a room and figure out how do we get around Mitch McConnell obstructing this.”

Though he was not specific, Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the majority leader, said on Tuesday after the vote that Democrats “have several serious options for how to reconsider this issue and advance legislation to combat voter suppression.”

“We will leave no stone unturned,” he said on Wednesday. “Voting rights are too important.”

But Mr. Schumer has other items on his to-do list, notably an infrastructure proposal prized by the White House that will consume much, if not all, of July, detracting from efforts to highlight both the voting rights measure and the drive to rein in the filibuster.

Pressed on how they can hope to convert Mr. Manchin and Ms. Sinema considering how strongly they have registered their opposition, Democrats and antifilibuster activists noted that Mr. Manchin only a few weeks ago had been dead set against the expansive voting rights bill. Democrats appeared to have lost his vote only to see him come forward with his own plan and join them on Tuesday.

The Battle Over Voting Rights

After former President Donald J. Trump returned in recent months to making false claims that the 2020 election was stolen from him, Republican lawmakers in many states have marched ahead to pass laws making it harder to vote and change how elections are run, frustrating Democrats and even some election officials in their own party.

    • A Key Topic: The rules and procedures of elections have become central issues in American politics. As of May 14, lawmakers had passed 22 new laws in 14 states to make the process of voting more difficult, according to the Brennan Center for Justice, a research institute.
    • The Basic Measures: The restrictions vary by state but can include limiting the use of ballot drop boxes, adding identification requirements for voters requesting absentee ballots, and doing away with local laws that allow automatic registration for absentee voting.
    • More Extreme Measures: Some measures go beyond altering how one votes, including tweaking Electoral College and judicial election rules, clamping down on citizen-led ballot initiatives, and outlawing private donations that provide resources for administering elections.
    • Pushback: This Republican effort has led Democrats in Congress to find a way to pass federal voting laws. A sweeping voting rights bill passed the House in March, but faces difficult obstacles in the Senate, including from Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia. Republicans have remained united against the proposal and even if the bill became law, it would most likely face steep legal challenges.
    • Florida: Measures here include limiting the use of drop boxes, adding more identification requirements for absentee ballots, requiring voters to request an absentee ballot for each election, limiting who could collect and drop off ballots, and further empowering partisan observers during the ballot-counting process.
    • Texas: Texas Democrats successfully blocked the state’s expansive voting bill, known as S.B. 7, in a late-night walkout and are starting a major statewide registration program focused on racially diverse communities. But Republicans in the state have pledged to return in a special session and pass a similar voting bill. S.B. 7 included new restrictions on absentee voting; granted broad new autonomy and authority to partisan poll watchers; escalated punishments for mistakes or offenses by election officials; and banned both drive-through voting and 24-hour voting.
    • Other States: Arizona’s Republican-controlled Legislature passed a bill that would limit the distribution of mail ballots. The bill, which includes removing voters from the state’s Permanent Early Voting List if they do not cast a ballot at least once every two years, may be only the first in a series of voting restrictions to be enacted there. Georgia Republicans in March enacted far-reaching new voting laws that limit ballot drop-boxes and make the distribution of water within certain boundaries of a polling station a misdemeanor. And Iowa has imposed new limits, including reducing the period for early voting and in-person voting hours on Election Day.

At the same time, some Democrats who had been reluctant to tinker with the filibuster, like Senators Jon Tester of Montana and Chris Coons of Delaware, have expressed some willingness to do so now if Republicans maintain their blockade against the voting rights bill, though they have not taken a definitive stance.

“Time will tell,” Mr. Tester said on Wednesday about what his position would be if it came to a filibuster showdown.

After already investing heavily in campaigns in the news media, antifilibuster activists intend to use the coming two-week Senate recess to build more support for the voting rights bill and put pressure on Democrats to change the filibuster to enact it.

“This is going to be a huge motivating factor for grass-roots activists across the country to take this procedural loss and turn it into a legislative win,” said Meagan Hatcher-Mays, the director of democracy policy for the progressive group Indivisible, one of several organizations planning events while senators are back home.

Past confrontations have shown that building to significant changes in Senate rules can take some time. In 2013, Harry Reid, then the Senate Democratic leader, spent months making the case on the Senate floor that Republicans led by Mr. McConnell were unfairly using the filibuster to impede President Barack Obama from filling important judicial vacancies with highly qualified nominees.

For most of that time, Mr. Reid appeared to lack the support to institute a rules change with Democratic votes. But by November 2013, most Senate Democrats had had enough and voted to eliminate the 60-vote threshold to advance most executive branch nominees over strenuous Republican objections.

Mr. Reid, watching from afar in Nevada, said he believed something similar would eventually happen when Democratic frustration with Republican filibusters boiled over.

“The filibuster is on its way out,” Mr. Reid said in an interview. “There is no question in my mind that the filibuster is going to be a thing of the past shortly. You can’t have a democracy that takes 60 percent of the vote to get things done.”

Categories
Politics

Supreme Courtroom guidelines for Pennsylvania cheerleader in class free speech case

Supreme Court rules for Pennsylvania cheerleader in school free speech case

Microphones placed in front of the US Supreme Court building in Washington, DC, the United States, on Tuesday, November 10, 2020.

Stefani Reynolds | Bloomberg | Getty Images

The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that a Pennsylvania high school violated the First Amendment rights of a cheerleader by punishing her for using vulgar language criticized on social media by the school.

The 8-1 statement upheld the lower court rulings against Mahanoy Area High School’s decision to suspend then-student Brandi Levy from her junior cheerleading roster for a year via two Snapchat posts she sent off-school .

The judges had weighed whether a 1969 Supreme Court ruling that gave public schools the ability to regulate certain idioms was applicable to a case where the speech was off campus.

In its ruling on Wednesday, the Supreme Court said, “Courts must be more skeptical of a school’s efforts to regulate off-campus language as it may mean the student cannot make this type of speech at all.”

“The school itself has an interest in protecting a student’s unpopular expression, especially when the expression is off-campus,” because “America’s public schools are the kindergartens of democracy,” wrote Judge Stephen Breyer, who wrote the majority opinion.

Judge Clarence Thomas, who turned 73 on Wednesday, disagreed.

Levy said in a statement, “The school has gone too far and I’m glad the Supreme Court approves.”

“I was frustrated, I was 14 years old and I expressed my frustration the way teenagers do today. Young people need the ability to express themselves without worrying about being punished in school,” said Levy.

“I never imagined that a simple snap would turn into a Supreme Court case, but I’m proud that my family and I stood up for the rights of millions of public school students.”

Brandi Levy, a former cheerleader at Mahanoy Area High School in Mahanoy City, Pennsylvania, poses in an undated photo taken by the American Civil Liberties Union.

Danna Singer / ACLU | REUTER’S METHOD

Levy, whose name was abbreviated to “BL” in court records, did not make it into her school’s cheerleading team as a high school student in May 2017, but instead won a place on the junior college roster.

While at a Cocoa Hut convenience store, she posted two messages on Snapchat to vent her frustration at missing out on college and not getting the position she’d been on the softball team the school wanted.

“F — school f — softball f — cheer f — everything,” she wrote in the first snap, which showed a picture of Levy and a friend with their middle fingers raised.

The second picture had a caption that read, “Love, like me and [another student] I am told that we need a year jv before we go to college, but that is[t] doesn’t matter to others? “This post also featured an upside-down smiley face emoji.

The news was reported to the cheerleading coaches and principal at Mahanoy City School, who found they had broken the rules and suspended Levy from the squad for the coming year.

The Supreme Court’s opinion found that the 3rd District Court of Appeal had ruled in favor of Levy on the grounds that the 1969 decision – Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District – “did not apply because schools did not have a special license to regulate student speaking off campus. “

But the Supreme Court on Wednesday disagreed with that view.

Instead, it noted that “Although public schools may have a particular interest in regulating some students’ off-campus speech, the particular interests offered by the school are insufficient to reflect BL’s interest in freedom of expression in this case overcome.”

Breyer wrote that there were three characteristics of the language of off-campus students that influenced a school’s ability to regulate it, as opposed to on-campus language.

The first characteristic, according to the court, is that a school is rarely “in loco parentis” – instead of the parents – when a student is off campus.

Its second characteristic is that schools have a “heavy burden” justifying off-campus language rules, otherwise they would be technically able to intervene in what a student is saying throughout the 24-hour day.

The third characteristic, wrote Breyer, is that schools, as “kindergartens of democracy”, should have an interest in protecting unpopular expressions of opinion, “especially when the expression of opinion takes place off-campus.”

David Cole, the American Civil Liberties Union legal director who campaigned in the Supreme Court on Levy’s case, said, “Protecting the freedom of young people to speak outside of school is vital, and this is a great victory for the freedom of speech Millions of students attending our country’s public schools. “

“The school has asked the court in this case to punish speech that it considers ‘disruptive’ regardless of where it occurs,” said Cole in a statement. “If the court had accepted this argument, it would have jeopardized all manner of speech by young people, including what they said about politics, school operations and general teenage frustrations.”

“The message of this judgment is clear – freedom of speech is for everyone, and that includes public school students,” said Cole.

But Thomas, in his solitary disagreement, wrote that “the majority fail to consider whether schools will often have more, not less, authority to discipline students who broadcast language on social media.”

Thomas explained that since language spoken on social media can be seen and shared on campus, “there is often a greater tendency to harm the school environment than face-to-face conversation off campus.”

He also wrote that the majority could not explain why they were breaking a previous rule that schools can regulate language off campus “as long as it tends to harm the school, its faculty or students, or its programs”.

The “basis” of majority decision-making is independent of anything stable, “wrote Thomas,” and courts (and schools) will almost certainly not know what exactly the opinion of the court means today. “

Categories
Politics

Some Republicans Discover Failure to Grapple With Local weather Change a ‘Political Legal responsibility’

Some Republicans Find Failure to Grapple With Climate Change a ‘Political Liability’

That same week, a group of young Republicans with signs saying “This is what an environmentalist sees” held an initial rally for “conservative” climate action in Miami.

On Capitol Hill, House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy plans to set up a Republican task force on climate change, his staff confirmed. Mr. McCarthy declined an interview request.

And on Wednesday, Mr Curtis plans to announce the formation of the Conservative Climate Committee, which aims to educate his party about global warming and develop policies to counter what the committee calls “radical progressive climate proposals”. So far, 38 members of the Republican House of Representatives have joined, its employees said.

“I hope that any Republican member of this group, when asked about the climate in a community meeting, will be very comfortable talking about it,” said Curtis, adding, “I fear that too often Republicans simply have said “what you don’t like without adding ‘but here are our ideas’.”

These ideas include limited government, market-based policies to curb greenhouse gas emissions as formulated by new conservative think tanks. One of them is C3 Solutions, jointly run by a former advisor to the late Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn, who called global warming “crap”. The organization also recently recruited an energy policy expert from the Heritage Foundation, a conservative group that until recently promoted vocal critics of climate change.

A package of bills presented by Mr. McCarthy on Earth Day advocated carbon capture, an emerging and expensive technology that captures and stores carbon emissions generated by power plants or factories before they are released into the atmosphere. It also encouraged tree planting and the expansion of nuclear power, a carbon-free energy source that many Republicans prefer to wind or solar power.

These measures would do little to reduce fossil fuel emissions, which raise average global temperatures and cause more extreme heat, drought and forest fires; stronger storms; and rapid extinction of plant and animal species. Republicans have not offered any specific emissions reduction targets.

Categories
Politics

Senate Republicans block S1 For the Folks Act invoice

Senate Republicans block S1 For the People Act bill

Senate Republicans blocked a sprawling Democratic voting rights and government ethics bill Tuesday, as federal efforts to respond to a rash of restrictive ballot laws passed by GOP-held state legislatures hit a wall.

The For the People Act aims to set up automatic voter registration, expand early voting, ensure more transparency in political donations and limit partisan drawing of congressional districts, among other provisions. Democrats pushed for the reforms before the 2020 election, but called them more necessary to protect the democratic process after former President Donald Trump’s false claims of electoral fraud sparked an attack on the Capitol and restrictive state voting measures.

The House passed its version of the bill in March. The measure failed a procedural test in the Senate Tuesday, as Republicans voted against starting debate on it.

The plan needed 60 votes to advance in the Senate, split evenly by party. It fell along party lines in a 50-50 vote.

After the bill failed to advance, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., criticized his GOP counterparts for reluctance to start the process of debating and amending the bill.

“Now, Republican senators may have prevented us from having a debate on voting rights today,” he said. “But I want to be very clear about one thing: the fight to protect voting rights is not over. By no means. In the fight for voting rights, this vote was the starting gun, not the finish line.”

Schumer said the Senate has “several, serious options for how to reconsider this issue and advance legislation to combat voter suppression.” He said he plans to “explore every last one of our options.”

CNBC Politics

Read more of CNBC’s politics coverage:

Republicans have framed the legislation as a power grab by Democrats. They have argued states rather than the federal government should have leeway to set election laws.

The GOP has also questioned the need for a new bill to protect voting rights. Republicans have downplayed the restrictive laws in states such as Georgia and Florida, which took steps including making it harder to vote absentee and limiting ballot drop-off boxes. Critics of the measures say they will disproportionately hurt voters of color and give GOP officials more power over election outcomes.

Ahead of the Senate vote, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., called the Democratic bill a “transparently partisan plan,” stressing it was in the works before Republican-led legislatures passed voting laws.

“The Senate is only an obstacle when the policy is flawed and the process is rotten,” he said.

U.S. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) takes part in a news conference held by Republican senators about the “H.R.1 – For the People Act” bill on Capitol Hill in Washington, June 17, 2021.

Leah Millis | Reuters

Schumer disputed the argument that the federal government should not exert its will on election laws. He pointed to past bills such as the Voting Rights Act that protected voters from discrimination.

The Biden administration has formally backed the For the People Act as the president considers voting rights a key piece of his agenda. In a statement after the vote, Biden said Democrats “unanimously came together to protect the sacred right to vote.”

He later continued: “Unfortunately, a Democratic stand to protect our democracy met a solid Republican wall of opposition. Senate Republicans opposed even a debate—even considering—legislation to protect the right to vote and our democracy.”

Vice President Kamala Harris, who has met with voting rights advocates in recent weeks, presided over the Senate vote on Tuesday. She plans in the coming weeks to promote registration and work with state leaders who are pushing back on restrictive bills, NBC News reported.

The For the People Act has little chance of revival in the current Senate. At least two Democrats — Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona — oppose scrapping the legislative filibuster, which would allow the party to pass more bills without Republicans.

Liberals have urged the party to abolish the 60-vote threshold as Democrats pursue their priorities with control of the White House and narrow majorities in the House and Senate.

But Manchin has signaled he would oppose final passage of the Democratic-led bill, potentially killing chances of its passage even without the filibuster. He has said he wants to approve a voting rights plan with GOP support, despite Republican opposition to more modest plans to protect ballot access.

Manchin proposed a potential compromise, which includes Democratic-backed provisions such as 15 days of early voting for federal elections and automatic voter registration at state motor vehicles agencies. It also calls for voter identification requirements, which Republicans have typically supported.

McConnell shot down the plan, arguing it contains the “rotten core” of Democrats’ bill.

Manchin did not commit until Tuesday afternoon to voting to start debate on his party’s legislation. Schumer announced a deal to take up Manchin’s proposal as an amendment if the For the People Act cleared the procedural vote.

The senator’s support ensured every Democrat would vote to advance the bill while Republicans blocked it.

Subscribe to CNBC on YouTube.

Categories
Politics

U.S. to Enable Some Asylum Seekers Rejected Below Trump to Reopen Instances

U.S. to Allow Some Asylum Seekers Rejected Under Trump to Reopen Cases

WASHINGTON – The Biden administration expands the pool of migrants allowed to enter the United States to file asylum applications in an effort to end President Donald J. Trump’s restrictive immigration policies.

The Department of Homeland Security said Tuesday that starting Wednesday it would consider migrants whose cases were dropped under a Trump-era program that gave border officials the power to send asylum seekers back to Mexico to wait for their cases to clear congested American immigration system. The change could affect tens of thousands of people.

President Biden had already ended the program officially known as the Migrant Protection Protocols. His government started accepting migrants enrolled in the program with pending asylum procedures this month.

In a statement, the ministry said the latest move was “part of our ongoing efforts to restore safe, orderly and humane processing to the south-western border”.

While many immigration and human rights activists welcomed the development, it will do little to ease pressure on the Biden administration to turn down hundreds of thousands of other migrants, many of whom are also seeking asylum and banned from entering the United States because of one of the states Health rule introduced during the coronavirus pandemic.

Democrats and human rights activists have long attacked the Trump program, which began in 2019 to prevent immigrants from crossing the southwestern border, despite having a legal right to seek asylum in the United States. Many of the asylum seekers enrolled in the program had completed their procedures because they could not appear for their trials in the United States while facing dangerous situations in Mexico.

“By keeping migrants in Mexico under dangerous conditions, the Trump administration ensured that many people could not appear for their hearings and that their demands would be rejected,” said MPs Bennie Thompson from Mississippi and Nanette Barragán from California, both Democrats, in a joint statement on Tuesday. Mr. Thompson is the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee and Ms. Barragán is the chairman of the Border Security Subcommittee. “Giving these people the opportunity to be eligible for processing is the right thing to do.”

Rep. Michael Guest, Republican of Mississippi and a member of the House of Representatives Homeland Security Committee, said the decision was made in a hurry and without transparency.

“The division’s seemingly impulsive announcement lacked any explanation, reasoning or other evidence that the decision was made after careful deliberation and consultation, which are both reasonable and required by law,” wrote Mr. Guest in a letter to Alejandro N. Mayorkas , the State Secretary for Homeland Security.

The development could affect more than 34,000 asylum seekers in the United States, according to Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, which collects immigration data.

Judy Rabinovitz, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, said the process won’t be quick. Applicants would have to register and someone would have to tell them what to submit in order to reopen their cases. And there is no guarantee that an immigration judge would grant an application for reopening, let alone grant asylum.

In another major break with the Trump administration, the Justice Department overturned a Trump-era immigration ruling last week that had made it nearly impossible for people to seek asylum in the United States over credible fears of domestic violence or gang violence. The decision could affect hundreds of thousands of Central Americans fleeing gang extortion and recruitment, and women who have fled domestic violence in the United States since 2013.

Categories
Politics

Stephen Ross-funded PAC spent over $1 million going into NYC major election

Stephen Ross-funded PAC spent over $1 million going into NYC primary election

A super PAC funded largely by real estate billionaire Stephen Ross spent just over $1 million to influence New York City’s primary race for City Council, with part of that investment going against progressives who are running for key council posts.

The organization, Common Sense NYC, has raised over $2 million. Ross, the chairman and founder of the real estate giant Related Companies, donated $1 million, and Ronald Lauder, also a billionaire and the youngest son of makeup legend Estee Lauder, contributed $500,000. Ross and Lauder have a combined net worth of over $12 billion, according to Forbes.

Ross, who is also the owner of the Miami Dolphins, came under fire in 2019 when he hosted a fundraiser in the Hamptons for former President Donald Trump. Equinox and SoulCycle, two luxury fitness brands owned by Related Companies, distanced themselves from the Trump event as customers threatened to boycott. In August, CNBC reported that Lauder, who has been a friend of Trump’s for years, had yet to start raising money for the then-president’s reelection campaign.

The financial might of the group was evident in the 24 hours before the official primary day. The New York City Campaign Finance Board shows that the organization spent over $100,000 and distributed at least nine mailers on Monday, the day before the election, opposing a group of progressive City Council candidates.

The PAC may not be done trying to sway voters away from various City Council contenders. A leader of the committee told CNBC they’re leaving open the possibility of continuing their efforts into the November general election.

“In the event that there are competitive NYC Council races in the general election, Common Sense NYC may be involved. I personally don’t anticipate more than two or three Council races being competitive in November,” Jeff Leb, the PAC’s treasurer, said in an email to CNBC on Tuesday.

The sheer amount raised and spent going into Tuesday’s primary by the group, officially labeled an independent expenditure committee, shows the importance to business leaders of influencing the lesser known City Council races. The PAC’s messaging has been focused, in part, on pushing back on the idea of defunding the police and other progressive causes.

The New York City Council is the legislative body responsible for creating and voting on proposed New York City laws. A group such as Common Sense can raise and spend an unlimited amount of money on the City Council races they deem important. Wall Street executives have already poured over $9 million into the race for New York’s next mayor, with most of the big money going to former presidential candidate Andrew Yang and Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams.

Longtime New York Democratic strategist Hank Sheinkopf told CNBC that beyond the group being worried about New York in a post-pandemic world, the move by the Ross-backed PAC to spend a ton against progressive candidates for City Council represents a power play by the real estate community.

“This is an attempt to … prove how powerful they are,” Sheinkopf told CNBC in an interview on Tuesday. Sheinkopf noted that members of the City Council have publicly taken on New York’s big business leaders and said Common Sense’s campaign is a test of how much power New York executives have going forward.

“Well, let’s say if they don’t win those races, will people be afraid of them? The fact is people aren’t afraid of them now. If they win, people will be more afraid. Power is about fear and not friendship,” Sheinkopf said.

The political strategist said that the City Council has become more and more progressive over the years and business leaders have often been criticized by those politicians, which led to the creation of PACs such as Common Sense NYC. “Business interests have been attacked by this council and there’s been an attempt to constrain the business community, including pushback on the power of the real estate community,” Sheinkopf said.

Leb defended the candidates the group supported in a separate email to CNBC.

“Common Sense NYC supported a broad slate of candidates who are pragmatic in their thinking and who are demonstrably qualified to help New York recover from the pandemic,” Leb said on Tuesday. “We are highlighting which candidates are qualified for local office and which are not, in races that are getting little attention otherwise. None of our funders played an active role in the operation or direction of Common Sense and they did not pick the races we engaged in.”

Leb, who is also a managing partner at Capitol Consulting, is ranked by City & State as one of the top lobbyists in New York.

The PAC has spent over $540,000 supporting 18 local candidates for office and nearly the same amount opposing eight others.

Representatives for Ross and Lauder did not respond to requests for comment before publication.

One of the big targets of Common Sense NYC has been Michael Hollingsworth, who is running for Brooklyn’s 35th District on the City Council. The PAC has spent over $100,000 opposing him. Two mailers against Hollingsworth were delivered to voters on Monday. One of the mailers reviewed by CNBC takes aim at Hollingsworth wanting to cut back on New York policing.

“While crime continues to go up, Michael Hollingsworth wants police funding to go down,” the mailer reads. “We must stop Michael Hollingsworth from defunding the police!” the ad says. The Gotham Gazette reports that Hollingsworth is supported by New York City’s Democratic Socialists of America and has received an endorsement by former gubernatorial candidate Cynthia Nixon.

Hollingsworth responded to the campaign being waged against him in a tweet after this story was published.

“We are not beholden to the wealthy, real estate donors, or special interests. We’re with the people,” he said on Twitter.

Common Sense NYC has spent over $95,000 to oppose Jaslin Kaur, who running for District 23’s City Council spot. The district is located in Queens, and Kaur was recently endorsed by progressive Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y. The City reported that Kaur was also endorsed by the Democratic Socialists of America.

Common Sense NYC spent just over $26,000 on two mailers against Kaur that were distributed on Monday.

Others seeing opposition from the Ross-backed effort include John Choe, who is running in a primary for District 20’s seat, and Alexa Aviles, a contender for New York City’s District 38 seat who also saw an endorsement from Ocasio-Cortez.

Choe commented on the moves being made by the Ross-backed PAC in a tweet Tuesday in response to this story.

“As the founder of our neighborhood Chamber that helps small businesses, I challenge the notion these super PAC vultures represent anything more than the rapacious greed and hubris of the billionaire oligarchs who are slowly destroying our country,” Choe said on Twitter.

Aviles said the PAC’s decision to take aim at her represents a larger campaign being waged by the real estate industry.

“It’s no wonder that Common Sense NYC, Inc. is spending a ludicrous amount of money attacking our people-powered campaign in District 38,” Aviles told CNBC after this story was published. “After all, one of their top donors is Trump-supporting Stephen Ross, a billionaire real-estate developer focused on devouring up our neighborhoods. I’m proud that the real-estate industry recognizes that we will fight them back. Our campaign is unequivocally against the interests of billionaires, because we’re fighting for working people.”

Categories
Politics

The White Home publicly acknowledges the U.S. is prone to miss Biden’s July Four vaccination objective.

The White House publicly acknowledges the U.S. is likely to miss Biden’s July 4 vaccination goal.

The White House on Tuesday publicly acknowledged that President Biden does not expect to meet his goal of having 70 percent of adults at least partially vaccinated by July 4 and will reach that milestone only for those aged 27 and older.

It would be the first time that Mr. Biden has failed to meet a vaccination goal he has set. If the rate of adult vaccinations continues on the current seven-day average, the country will come in just shy of Mr. Biden’s target, with about 67 percent of adults partly vaccinated by July 4, according to a New York Times analysis.

White House officials have argued that falling short by a few percentage points is not significant, given all the progress the nation has made against Covid-19. “We have built an unparalleled, first of its kind nationwide vaccination program,” Jeff Zients, the White House pandemic response coordinator, said at a new briefing. “This is a remarkable achievement.”

In announcing the goal on May 4, Mr. Biden made a personal plea to the unvaccinated, saying getting a shot was a “life and death” choice. According to the latest figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 150 million Americans have been fully vaccinated and 177 million have received at least one dose.

But health experts warn that the falloff in the vaccination rate could mean renewed coronavirus outbreaks this winter when cold weather drives people indoors, with high daily death rates in areas where comparatively few people have protected themselves with shots.

“I give credit to the Biden administration for putting in place a mass vaccination program for adults that did not exist,” said Dr. Paul Offit, the director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “But now we’ve hit a wall.”

Unless tens of millions more Americans get vaccinated in the next few months, he said, “I think, come winter, we are going to again see a surge. And that surge is going to occur exactly where you would expect it to occur — in areas that are unvaccinated or under-vaccinated.”

Young adults aged 18 to 26 have so far proven particularly hard to persuade. “The reality is many younger Americans that felt like Covid-19 is not something that impacts them, and they’ve been less eager to get the shot,” Mr. Zients said.

He said it would take “a few extra weeks” to reach more of that group to achieve the goal of 70 percent of adults at least partially vaccinated.

Lazaro Gamio contributed reporting.

Categories
Politics

Belarus sanctioned after diversion of Ryanair flight to arrest journalist

Belarus sanctioned after diversion of Ryanair flight to arrest journalist

This Sunday, March 26, 2017, the Belarusian police arrested the journalist Raman Pratasevich (center) in Minsk, Belarus.

Sergei Grits | AP

WASHINGTON – The Biden government imposed a series of sanctions on Belarus on Monday amid western anger over the forced diversion of a Ryanair flight to arrest an opposition journalist.

Last month, a passenger plane flying from Greece to Lithuania was suddenly diverted to Minsk, the capital of Belarus. The Ryanair flight was escorted to Minsk by a Soviet-era MiG-29 fighter jet. On landing, the authorities arrested the opposition journalist Roman Protasevich.

The extraordinary diversion of an airliner has been called a “hijack” by some leaders of the European Union. The 27-nation bloc immediately imposed sanctions on Belarus, including banning the use of airspace and airports within the EU for its airlines.

The State Department has now followed suit and has sanctioned 46 Belarusian officials for their involvement in the arrest of Protasevich. In addition, the Treasury Department announced sanctions against 16 individuals and five companies.

“These steps are also a response to the ongoing repression in Belarus, including attacks on human rights, democratic processes and fundamental freedoms,” wrote Foreign Minister Antony Blinken in a statement on Monday, adding that the sanctions are with Canada, the European Union and the UK.

“These coordinated designations show the unwavering transatlantic commitment to support the democratic aspirations of the Belarusian people,” wrote Blinken.

The Belarusian embassy in Washington did not immediately respond to CNBC’s request for comment.

Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko, a staunch defender of Russian President Vladimir Putin, faced widespread calls for resignation after a controversial election that put him back into a sixth term. The almost daily protests rocked Belarus for almost three months.

“The persons named today have a declaration to the people of Belarus through their activities around the fraudulent presidential election on the 9th.

Members of the Belarusian diaspora and Ukrainian activists incinerate white and red smoke grenades during a rally in support of the Belarusian people who died on Aug.

Sergei Supinsky | AFP | Getty Images

Those sanctioned by the United States on Monday include some of Lukashenko’s closest associates: his spokeswoman Natallia Eismant and former chief of staff Natallia Kachanava, who is currently his ambassador for the president in Minsk, Mikalai Karpiankou, the deputy interior minister of Belarus and the current commander the Belarusian Police and the Belarusian Prosecutor General Andrei Shved.

The State Security Committee of the Republic of Belarus, also known as the Belarusian KGB, has also been sanctioned by the United States

“The Belarusian KGB has arrested, intimidated and otherwise pressured the opposition to include Pratasevich,” the Treasury Department wrote in a statement, adding that the organization increased its crimes after Lukashenko’s 2020 election, by the US and their allies are viewed as fraudulent.

The Ministry of Finance has also sanctioned the internal troops of the Ministry of Interior of the Republic of Belarus, a Belarusian police force, for violently suppressing peaceful protesters since the 2020 presidential election.

The sanctions against Belarus, a Russian ally, follow President Joe Biden’s first face-to-face meeting with his Russian counterpart in Switzerland, at which the two agreed to resume nuclear talks and return their respective ambassadors to their posts.

National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan said on Sunday the US is preparing additional sanctions against Russia for the imprisonment of Kremlin critic Alexei Navalny.

“We are preparing another package of sanctions to be applied in this case,” said Sullivan on CNN’s Sunday program “State of the Union”. “It will come as soon as we develop the packages to make sure we are achieving the right goals,” he added.

Concerns over Navalny’s detention and deteriorating health are the latest blow to already strained relations between Moscow and the West.

Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny, accused of disregarding the terms of a suspended sentence for embezzlement, is attending a court hearing in Moscow, Russia, on February 2, 2021.

Moscow City Court | Reuters

Categories
Politics

Choose Narrows Fits Over Clearing of Protesters Earlier than Trump Photograph Op

Judge Narrows Suits Over Clearing of Protesters Before Trump Photo Op

WASHINGTON – A federal judge on Monday partially dismissed claims by Black Lives Matter, the American Civil Liberties Union and others who accused the Trump administration of abusing power to forcibly disperse a protest outside the White House last year.

The lawsuits alleged that the government violated the civil rights of protesters and pledged to vacate Lafayette Square so President Donald J. Trump could go to a church near the White House where he had a Bible outside for a photo op held.

But in the 51-page verdict, Trump-appointed US District Judge Dabney L. Friedrich said federal conspiracy claims were “just too speculative” to continue those parts of the lawsuit. She also ruled that the then federal officials named as defendants, such as Attorney General William P. Barr and Gregory T. Monahan, the acting chief of the U.S. Park Police, were entitled to qualified immunity and could not be sued for damage over the episode.

Judge Friedrich, however, allowed lawsuits against continued restrictions on protesters’ access to Lafayette Square and against local police departments in Washington and Arlington Counties, Virginia, to continue.

Scott Michelman, the legal director of the District of Columbia Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement that the decision to dismiss was an “astounding rejection of our constitutional values ​​and the rights of the First Amendment protesters.” He added that the decision put federal officials above the law.

“Today’s ruling essentially gives the federal government the green light to use force, including deadly force, against protesters while federal officials claim to protect national security,” Michelman said.

Protesters had gathered in Lafayette Square last June to protest the police murder of George Floyd when police officers and the National Guard flocked to the park to disperse the crowd.

The violence that followed became one of the defining moments of the Trump presidency. Mounted police and riot officers used stun grenades, tear gas, batons and clubs to forcibly remove the crowd from the park and historic St. John’s Episcopal Church, which had been damaged in a fire the night before.

Minutes later, Mr. Trump appeared at the church – flanked by aides and intelligence agents. The president posed with a Bible, made no formal remarks, and then went to the White House.

Categories
Politics

Supreme Court docket guidelines in opposition to NCAA in compensation struggle with faculty athletes

Supreme Court rules against NCAA in compensation fight with college athletes

The Supreme Court handed a unanimous victory Monday to Division I college athletes in their fight against the National Collegiate Athletic Association over caps it sought to impose on compensation related to education.

The court voted 9-0 to affirm lower court rulings that found that antitrust law prevented the NCAA from restricting payments to athletes for items such as musical instruments or as compensation for internships. The justices rejected the NCAA’s argument that its players’ amateur status would be impossible to maintain if they could receive pay, even for education-related expenses.

“Put simply, this suit involves admitted horizontal price fixing in a market where the defendants exercise monopoly control,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the court.

The conservative justice, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, wrote that it was “unclear exactly what the NCAA seeks.”

“To the extent it means to propose a sort of judicially ordained immunity from the terms of the Sherman Act for its restraints of trade — that we should overlook its restrictions because they happen to fall at the intersection of higher education, sports, and money — we cannot agree,” Gorsuch wrote.

The outcome was largely expected following oral argument in March. The decision upheld an injunction imposed by a federal district court that barred the NCAA from limiting “compensation and benefits related to education.” The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals earlier approved of the injunction.

In allowing the injunction, Gorsuch wrote that the NCAA can ask lawmakers to carve out an exception for it.

“The NCAA is free to argue that, ‘because of the special characteristics of [its] particular industry,’ it should be exempt from the usual operation of the antitrust laws — but that appeal is ‘properly addressed to Congress,'” Gorsuch wrote.

“Nor has Congress been insensitive to such requests. It has modified the antitrust laws for certain industries in the past, and it may do so again in the future,” Gorsuch wrote. “But until Congress says otherwise, the only law it has asked us to enforce is the Sherman Act, and that law is predicated on one assumption alone — ‘competition is the best method of allocating resources’ in the Nation’s economy.”

The case was originally brought by Shawne Alston, a former West Virginia running back, and other student athletes. The dispute, known as National Collegiate Athletic Assn. v. Alston, No. 20-512, is separate from the ongoing controversy over NCAA rules that restrict athletes from being paid to play or for doing endorsement deals.

The latter rules have not yet come before the Supreme Court, and the court’s opinion did not weigh on their legality.

However, Trump appointee Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggested in a blistering concurrence to Monday’s opinion that those rules may also run afoul of antitrust law. He wrote that “The NCAA is not above the law” and that “The NCAA’s business model would be flatly illegal in almost any other industry in America.”

“Everyone agrees that the NCAA can require student athletes to be enrolled students in good standing. But the NCAA’s business model of using unpaid student athletes to generate billions of dollars in revenue for the colleges raises serious questions under the antitrust laws,” Kavanaugh wrote.

He added that it was “highly questionable whether the NCAA and its member colleges can justify not paying student athletes a fair share of the revenues on the circular theory that the defining characteristic of college sports is that the colleges do not pay student athletes.”

“And if that asserted justification is unavailing, it is not clear how the NCAA can legally defend its remaining compensation rules,” Kavanaugh wrote.

Jen Psaki, the White House press secretary, said Monday that the White House was supportive of the Supreme Court’s decison, which she said recognized that athletes’ “hard work should not be exploited.”

“The president believes that everyone should be compensated fairly for his or her labor,” Psaki said.