Why Is Señor Trumpanzee So Scared Of Vote-by-Mail?

Donna Edwards

Sunday morning Donna Edwards' column in the Washington Post must have triggered Señor Trumpanzee. At 7:00 AM he was attacking vote-by-mail again.

Donna wrote that he had just done something that she hadn't done in 20 years and that tens of millions of Americans plan on doing this year as well-- she voted by mail. She lives in Maryland, where that's easy. Trump and his Republican enablers want to make it as hard as they can so as few people vote-- in the midst of the pandemic-- as possible.

Donna didn't have to even request the ballot she filled out. "It was sent to me courtesy of Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan (R)," she wrote, "who decided after postponing the primary election because of the pandemic that every registered voter would receive a ballot in the mail. Filling in the ballot was quick and easy, the instructions were clear and I did it in my pajamas over a cup of coffee. When I finished, I sealed the postage-paid envelope and signed a statement saying I understood that if I violated the state elections law, I would face a $1,000 fine, two years in prison or both."

So, what is all the fuss? President Trump is making outrageous and unfounded claims of “tremendous” voter fraud with vote by mail, while some Republicans and the conservative media are parroting the same. Trump’s recent threats to withhold federal funding from Michigan in light of its secretary of state’s move to expand vote by mail comes as Texas Republicans make a hard charge in federal court to stop efforts there.

Is the president, fearful of his reelection prospects, willing to abuse the prerogatives of his office and force citizens to endanger their health in order to vote? Sadly, the answer is “yes.”

Indeed, Trump said the quiet part out loud a few weeks ago when he admitted his real fear about early voting and vote by mail: “You’d never have a Republican elected in this country again.” Trouble is, like so many claims by this president, there is simply no evidence to support it.

It is worth noting that Democrats also have concerns about universal vote by mail and its impact on turnout among their base voters-- but those concerns are about participation, not fraud. However, a recent analysis of 2016 voters found little demographic difference in use of mail ballots, except with age-- older voters are more likely to vote by mail than younger voters. And, contrary to oft-repeated political wisdom, black voters are slightly more open to voting by mail than white voters.

Here’s a fact for the president: More than one-quarter of voters cast their ballots by mail in the 2018 election, and that number is likely to increase in the novel coronavirus era. As evidence, the April primary in Wisconsin, in the midst of the pandemic, saw the voter turnout among the highest in 40 years, with more than 70 percent of votes coming from absentee ballots. Another fact: A recent survey by Pew Research Center found that 70 percent of Americans believe that anyone who wants to vote by mail should be allowed to do so.

Simply put, Americans want to be able to vote by mail in November. Voters may be afraid of coronavirus, but they are not afraid to vote by mail. We should be making it easier and not more difficult. Contrary to Trump’s assertions, voting by mail neither increases voter fraud nor gives Democrats an unfair advantage. It is one of the least partisan, most popular activities in our democracy. As to Democrats’ fears, this is not a partisan issue. Research by the Democracy and Polarization Lab at Stanford University found that voting by mail does not increase party share or turnout by party and only increases overall turnout “modestly," although that last finding may change with the looming pandemic.

With so much at stake, both parties must figure out how to continue voter contact and to make work vote by mail, drop-box balloting, in-person voting and every method they can conceive for voters to exercise their franchise safely and securely. While politics takes a backseat to medical professionals, this moment might provide the time needed to play catch-up for the massive job ahead in November-- recruiting poll workers, printing, mailing and counting ballots. The challenge for Democrats and Republicans in the age of coronavirus is to teach and encourage those who are accustomed to voting in person to vote by mail, while still preserving a safe option for voting in person.

Come November, we will see the patriots who stand with voters vs. the partisans who stand in the way. Sadly, Republicans missed an important opportunity by failing to support adequate funding for elections in the recent coronavirus funding packages-- only $400 million was allocated to states to shore up their voting infrastructure, far less than the estimated $2 billion that’s needed. The next package should make up that difference so that states have sufficient resources to conduct a successful November election, including full funding for the U.S. Postal Service to meet its responsibility to deliver ballots safely.

Since I expect to still be concerned about the coronavirus in the fall, I look forward to voting by mail then. The only thing I missed about going to the polls in person was my coveted “I voted” sticker, so election officials should figure that out, too.

What Campaign? by Nancy Ohanian

There are already 5 states that conduct all elections entirely by mail: Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington and Utah. None have reported the vote fraud that Trump and his allies keep screeching about. Three other states allow counties to decide on whether or not they want vote by mail elections: California, Nebraska and North Dakota. The bipartisan National Conference of State Legislatures explored pros and cons:

Generally, states begin with providing all-mail elections only in certain circumstances, and then add additional opportunities as citizens become familiar with procedures. Oregon’s vote-by-mail timeline includes four times that the legislature acted prior to the 1998 citizens’ vote that made Oregon the first all-mail election state. See below for state-by-state statutes.

For detailed information on state laws related to voting by mail please see our resource on Voting Outside the Polling Place.

  Possible Advantages

• Voter convenience and satisfaction-- Citizens can vote at home and take all the time they need to study the issues. Voters often express enthusiasm for all-mail elections.
• Financial savings-- Jurisdictions may save money because they no longer need to staff traditional polling places with poll workers and equip each polling place with voting machines. A 2016 study of Colorado from the Pew Charitable Trusts found that costs decreased an average of 40 percent in five election administration categories across 46 of Colorado’s 64 counties (those with available cost data). However, the study examines a number of reforms that Colorado enacted in 2013, with all-mail elections being the most significant. Others included instituting same day registration and shortening the time length for residency in the state for voting purposes.
• Turnout-- Some reports indicate that because of convenience, voter turnout increases. These reports assert that turnout increases by single digits for presidential elections and more in smaller elections. See this 2013 report on all-mail ballot elections in Washington and this 2018 report on all-mail ballot elections in Utah. Effects on turnout can be more pronounced for low propensity voters, those that are registered but do not vote as frequently.

Possible Disadvantages

• Tradition--The civic experience of voting with neighbors at a local school, church, or other polling place no longer exists.
• Disparate effect on some populations-- Mail delivery is not uniform across the nation. Native Americans on reservations may in particular have difficulty with all-mail elections. Many do not have street addresses, and their P.O. boxes may be shared. Literacy can be an issue for some voters, as well. Election materials are often written at a college level. (Literacy can be a problem for voters at traditional polling place locations too.) One way to mitigate this is to examine how voter centers are distributed throughout counties to best serve the population.
• Security-- During all-mail elections (and absentee voting), coercion by family members or others might occur.
• Financial considerations-- All-mail elections greatly increase printing costs for an election. Additionally, jurisdictions must have appropriate equipment to read paper ballots at a central location, and changing from electronic equipment to equipment that can scan paper ballots can be expensive.
• Slow vote counting-- All-mail elections may slow down the vote counting process, especially if a state's policy is to allow ballots postmarked by Election Day to be received and counted in the days and weeks after the election.

Illegal Ballot Destruction In The Midst Of A Law Suit Means Wasserman Schultz Stole The FL-23 Primary Election Afterall

Donna Edwards became a member of Congress-- one of the best members of Congress-- in 2008. But, truth be told, her constituents elected her in 2006... only to see the victory snatched out of her hands on election night with last minute stuffed ballot boxes from corrupt conservative Al Wynn and his Machine. Donna got to work on the 2008 campaign the next day and after Donna eviscerated him in the primary-- 59% to 37%-- he resigned to become a corporate lobbyist.

Last year Tim Canova ran a similar grassroots progressive race against the female counterpart to Wynn-- Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the same crook who, as DNC chair, was fired for fixing the primaries for Hillary Clinton. She fixed the election for Hillary; did she fix her own election against Canova? He always thought so but the media and DC establishment went bonkers when he mentioned it and nearly drove this good man out of politics with all their vitriol and venom. Polling was showing him ahead but on primary day Wasserman Schultz beat him 28,809 to 21,907 in a very low turnout election.

Friday, Marc Caputo broke the a story at Politico about how Brenda Snipes a crooked Wasserman Schultz crony and ally and the Broward County elections chief broke the law by destroying ballots cast in the tight primary election between Wasserman Schultz and Tim Canova after Canova sued to get access to the ballots. Canova, according to Caputo "wanted to inspect the optical-scan ballots cast in his Aug. 30 primary race against Wasserman Schultz because he had concerns about the integrity of the elections office."

Under longstanding federal law, ballots cast in a congressional race aren’t supposed to be destroyed until 22 months after the election. And under state law, a public record sought in a court case is not supposed to be destroyed without a judge’s order.

Snipes’ office, however, destroyed the paper ballots in question in October-- in the middle of Canova’s lawsuit-- but says it’s lawful because the office made high-quality electronic copies. Canova’s legal team found out after the fact last month.

“The documents were not destroyed because they were maintained in an electronic format,” Snipes’ attorney, Burnadette Norris-Weeks, told Politico. “They have the documents... They did a two-day inspection of the ballots.”

But Canova, a Nova Southeastern University law professor, and his attorney say they wanted originals to make sure they weren’t tampered with. Digital copies can be altered, they said.

Seven election-law lawyers interviewed by Politico do not share Snipes' attorney's interpretation of the statute. Nor does the Department of Justice’s voting division, which is in charge of enforcing the federal law.

“If it’s a federal election, i.e., there is at least one federal candidate on the ballot, the custodian must keep the ballots for 22 months,” Brett Kappel, a Washington lawyer with Akerman LLP, said in an email to Politico. “State law may require a shorter time for retention, but federal law would pre-empt any such state law with regard to ballots cast for federal candidates.”

Kappel said evidence in an active court case should never be unilaterally destroyed. He said actual paper ballots are superior to imaged copies, and he pointed to the legal wrangling over Florida’s now-discarded punch-card ballots that were banned after the disputed 2000 presidential elections in Florida.

...Hans von Spakovsky, an elections expert with the conservative Heritage Foundation, said the ballots must be preserved in paper form for 22 months. He said there’s a simple reason that original ballots are superior to an electronic image: “These electronic systems can be hacked.”

According to Snipes’ office, however, the ballot copies are of high quality for a review. Her attorney also dismissed Canova as a sore loser who’s trying to create a name for himself as he challenges Wasserman Schultz a second time.

“Mr. Canova lost this election,” she said. “He’s been all over Washington and has been trying to do a documentary because he’s upset he lost the election.”

In one hearing, Norris-Weeks insisted that she “certainly could get [a sworn statement] from Debbie Wasserman Schultz” to say that “she knows that they're preparing a documentary, and they're running all around talking to different people trying to do that.”

But Canova said the accusation was false.

“I’m not working on a documentary,” he said. “It is unfortunate that counsel for the Supervisor of Elections has to make things up to somehow justify the office’s illegal actions.”

Wasserman Schultz’s office declined to comment, but she has said she looks forward to again facing Canova, whom she beat by 13.6 percentage points last year.

Canova didn’t want to comment about his specific motivations for the suit, but acknowledged he has concerns about the race against Wasserman Schultz. Canova’s interest in the ballots was piqued by Lulu Friesdat, a documentary filmmaker and activist with a group called the Election Integrity network, which filed the first records request to inspect or copy the ballots in March.

A month later, Snipes’ office responded to the records request by saying it would cost $71,868.87 to sort and produce the ballots for inspection. Canova soon got involved with his attorney, Leonard Collins, and eventually they negotiated a price reduction that brought the cost down to about $3,000. But relations soured, and Canova sued in June.

Snipes’ office, meanwhile, is involved in two other lawsuits and has been plagued by errors and controversies over public records and paperwork.

One of the reasons Donald Trump is in the White House is because the Democratic Party was saddled with a corrupt party head, Wasserman Schultz, whose entire career, going back to her days in the Florida state legislature, have been marked with blatant and persistent corruption. She has long been the poster child of everything plaguing the Democratic Party. She has smeared and slimed Canova non-stop from the moment he dared to challenge here reelection. And now its getting closer and closer to the day when she will be, not just fired as the worst DNC chair in history but fired from Congress itself. Please consider helping Canova's campaign by clicking on the Blue America thermometer on the right. Meanwhile, this was the statement he issued after Caputo's explosive report yesterday:

In ordering the destruction of ballots, the Supervisor not only violated federal law requiring ballots be maintained for 22 months. Snipes also certified that the ballots were not subject to a pending lawsuit, which she knew was a complete falsehood given that Snipes had been personally served as the defendant in our lawsuit nearly three months earlier and even though we had already made public records requests and pre-trial discovery demands to inspect the ballots.

The ballot destruction raises serious questions:  Why engage in this blatant lawbreaking? To cover up something worse? What has the Supervisor of Elections been hiding? We demand state and federal investigations into the ballot destruction and prosecution of illegal wrongdoing.

Destruction of ballots prevents any reliable audit of the election results. We are left dependent on scanned ballot images created and sorted by scanning software that requires inspection by software experts. But the scanning software is considered proprietary software, owned and controlled by the private vendors, and often protected from independent inspection and analysis.

This destruction of ballots undermines people's faith and confidence in the integrity of our elections and this election in particular. To restore confidence, Congress must investigate and hold public hearings on the circumstances of my primary, including inspection and analysis of the scanned ballot images and the scanning software. Congress should also investigate the relationships between the vendors that control the electronic voting machines and software, their officers and directors, the Broward Supervisor of Elections office, Democratic party officials, and candidates for public office.

The Democratic Party will never be a real alternative to the Republican Party nor a welcoming home for good government reformers, with people like Wasserman Schultz exercising leadership roles in it. This person isn't even the lesser of two evils, which is all the Democrats can claim half the time anyway. She is what makes contemporary politics disgusting and she is the embodiment of what keeps decent people from wanting to get involved with politics.

We Have An Idea Who Amy McGrath Is Now. But What Will She Do For Kentuckians In Congress?

A lesbian friend of mine was as excited by the Amy McGrath video as I was-- no, more excited than I was. It's an inspiring video-- one of the best I've seen all season... on a par with Randy Bryce's introductory video. We covered it, enthusiasically, on Wednesday. I even got a friend I visited in the hospital to watch it so he would get a feel-good boost of the right kind of patriotism.

But my friend warned me that as inspiring as the short clip is-- and as sexy as she finds Amy-- there was something missing. Unlike Randy Bryce, Amy isn't offering much more than her inspirational life story. Many voters want more; elections are about them, not candidates' biographies. My infatuated friend said she smells "Blue Dog."

Today another friend-- you remember ValleyGirl?-- sent me a short note:

A great ad does not a great candidate make.

No news to you, I'm sure. But people on my mailing list are stumbling all over each other to praise Amy McGrath and donate money to her. wow! I guess all the adrenaline they felt watching those fighter jets got them hyped up.

But next up on youtube was this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVxsg_eW2P0

Dem Amy McGrath Stumbles Through CNN Interview, Won't Explain Position On Trump Or Single Payer

I've been trying to get in touch with Amy all week. I had some good leads but so far nothing has panned out. The CNN interview was bad enough but her her campaign website, which-- DCCC style-- has no issues or positions page, just bio stuff, turned me off a bit. What was great about Randy Bryce was that after the video, there was the reality of a dedicated, tried and tested progressive who understands the issues and knows how to discuss them. Maybe Amy's that too; I hope so.

Danielle Kutzelben interviewed her for NPR Thursday. Highlights:

How did you decide to run? Were you recruited, or was this purely your decision?

So this was purely my decision. There's been a lot of talk of Democratic Party recruitment, and I sort of laughed at that as I was going through the process of defining myself.

Because I say, the Democratic Party didn't recruit me; I recruited it. After the 2016 elections I think like a lot of Americans, we just took a step back and for me I just refocused and tried to figure out what just happened. Who are the candidates, [and] how did we get here?

And I realized that I had to do something. I felt like I had two choices: I could accept things the way they were, sort of politics as usual, or I could accept the responsibility for trying to change something, trying to do something. And this is my response.

So was the 2016 election the straw that broke the camel's back?

I think the 2016 election was not necessarily the straw that broke the camel's back.

I would say it was the start of real reflection for me as to, "Hey. This is something I think I want to do."

The straw that broke the camel's back for me was when the Republicans in the springtime were putting up their bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act, this terrible bill that nobody liked, and they were pushing it through Congress without debate, without anybody knowing what was in the bill, just to prove a political point.

You talked about not being recruited, but Democrats are recruiting veterans and particularly women veterans for 2018. You check both of those boxes, so what do you think about that strategy?

I think it probably-- hopefully it will be effective.

I think, look. With regard to women, I'm not running as a woman-- "Vote for me!" But the fact of the matter is we have a very low percentage of women in our Legislature in this country compared to other nations in the western world.

Part of that problem is women don't run. We don't run for office. It's not that people are overwhelmingly voting against us. We just don't step up to the plate. So we have to do a better job of recruiting women and getting women to step up.

With regard to veterans, look. We have the fewest amount of veterans in our Legislature in places like Congress than ever before in history. [Note: She's close, in terms of modern Congresses, but according to the Congressional Research Service, at the start of this Congress, there was one more veteran member than there was at the start of the prior Congress.] And I feel this is a problem. Because veterans, they're a group of people who really put the country first. They put their lives on the line, they sacrifice, they know how to get a mission done.

So yes, I believe that strategy is a good one. Not because it's going to flip the House for Democrats-- obviously I'm a Democrat, and I'm happy for that, and I hope that happens. But I think that's good for America. We need more women, we need more veterans.

There's this divide among Democrats right now, between the far-left wing and centrists. How should the party bridge that divide? Do you think you could help?

I think-- it's not just Democrats that have a divide. I think you're seeing some real divides on the Republican side, too.

But there is a bit of a gap. So how I think I can deal with this or why I'm somebody who might be able to bridge that gap is I fully recognize that if it were not progressives-- I mean real progressives; radical people at the time-- in government, I would not have had a job for 20 years.

Because when I was 13, 14 years old, it was those progressives in government who said-- when most of Congress said, "Hey, women shouldn't fly in combat. Women shouldn't do that job,"-- it was those progressives who said, "No. We should have the best person doing those jobs, and our goal is to fight and win wars. So we should have the best person."

With regard to the more moderates, I have spent 20 years as a United States Marine. I'm a little more realistic when it comes to some of these foreign policy, defense policy issues, some of the things we do overseas. And so I really feel like I can connect to the more moderates.

I also consider myself a fiscal conservative. And what does that mean? To me, that means that we actually pay for the goods and services that we want government to provide. That's what that means.

In last year's primary were you a supporter of Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton?

I was a supporter of Hillary Clinton.

In your ad, you criticize Andy Barr for supporting the GOP health care bill. How would you want to see Obamacare changed? Is single-payer something you could support?

I like single-payer. So let me take this back. If we have the structure that we have right now. If we were to start over and have to start over from scratch, say this was 10 years ago-- I think we now know that single-payer would be the way to go.

But the reality is, we don't have that. We have a large infrastructure of health care in America. And maybe what we ought to do is try to shore up Obamacare and make it work. Make the holes that are in it-- and there are some real holes; no one has ever said the Affordable Care Act was perfect-- but let's not lie and say it's failing. It's not failing.

Many Kentuckians are benefiting from it. Even Republican Kentuckians are benefiting from the Affordable Care Act. Let's have a conversation about it and actually try to shore it up and fill the holes. We still have large swaths of the American public that still cannot afford health care, even under the Affordable Care Act.

Is she going to campaign by promising to sign on as a co-sponsor of John Conyers' Medicare-For-All bill? Probably not. Will she sign on if she's elected? I hope I get to ask her. Is she the DCCC candidate? Friends in Kentucky tell me she isn't and that they've been encouraging Lexington's popular mayor, Jim Gray, to run. Gray-- identity group is LGBT-- just ran for senator against Rand Paul, so his name recognition is very high. He did way better than Hillary did in KY-06. In fact, he beat Paul in three counties, including the big one-- Fayette, where the result was 82,407 (60.4%) to 54,064 (39.6%). He took Franklin 13,860 (58.1%) to 10,000 (41.9%) and won in Nicholas County 1,434 (51.2%) to 1,365 (48.8%). He out-performed Hillary in every county. The only one she won-- Fayette-- she under-performed Gray by a lot. She beat Trump 69,776 (51.2%) to 56,890 (41.8%). Over 10,000 Gray voters abstained in the presidential race.

Like I said Wednesday, in the kind of political environment we have now, this is probably a winnable seat. But it's a crowded primary already, even without Gray. The other candidates include state Senator Reggie Thomas, Colmon Eldridge-- a former staffer for former Governor Steve Beshear-- Leslie Combs, a former state rep from Pikeville, and frequent candidate Geoff Young. It will be interesting to see if, like Bryce in Wisconsin, Amy can keep getting better after the introductory video, which has already topped a million views! I'm still waiting for a call back.

Valley Girl followed up with some more insight this morning:

Contrast that sorry [Amy McGrath CNN] performance with Randy Bryce’s first appearance on national TV-- Jun 22, 2017, on The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell:



Here’s the deal-- in his first appearance on national TV, Randy Bryce was exactly the same person as portrayed in his great campaign launch video. And, in every interview I’ve heard or watched, radio or TV, he remains the same person: honest, articulate, competent, graceful, no bullshit.

And Amy McGrath? Gag me with a spoon. Yes, her campaign launch video was great. Powerful. But it’s not enough to have a great campaign video, unless the video proves true over time. Did the Amy McGrath who appeared on CNN remotely resemble the Amy McGrath presented by Mark Putnam, a very skilled and talented ad creator, in her launch video? I’ll leave that for you to answer.

Some excellent news that just came in. Former Congresswoman Donna Edwards is helping advise Amy on her campaign so, if there were any early stumbles, they are likely to get straightened out quickly. "Amy," she told us, "is just the kind of no-nonsense, authentic public servant that we need in Congress. It may be a tough district, but she's the real deal."

Who Wants To Double Down On The Catastrophically Failed War On Drugs?

Monday we learned exactly who. House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy scheduled a debate on Charlie Dent's Dangerous Synthetic Drug Control Act (H.R. 3537) for Monday. It puts 22 synthetic compounds-- including 11 used to create synthetic marijuana (K2 or Spice)-- on Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), forcing mandatory minimum sentences on violators. Proponents of the legislation claim it's meant to combat drug abuse. The vote was 258-101 but it was an interesting breakdown. Most Republicans voted YES and most Democrats voted NO, but that doesn't really tell the story at all. McCarthy and Dent led 192 Republicans to back it and they were joined by 66 mostly right-wing Democrats from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party-- Blue Dogs like Gwen Graham (FL), Henry Cuellar (TX), Kyrsten Sinema (AZ), Jim Cooper (TN), and Brad Ashford (NE) and New Dems like Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL), Ann Kuster (NH), Patrick Murphy (FL), Gerald Connolly (VA), John Delaney (MD), Jim Himes (CT), Scott Peters (CA), Denny Heck (WA) and drugged up mess Pete Aguilar (CA). Meanwhile, the House Liberty Caucus led the opposition and 20 Republicans joined 81 Democrats in voting against the bill. 72 members-- 33 Republicans and 39 Democrats-- weren't able to vote on the bill at all, many because of air traffic delays.

Most, though not all of the progressives joined Pelosi in voting NO, including Raul Grijalva (AZ), Barbara Lee (CA), Matt Cartwright (PA), Mark Pocan (WI), Judy Chu (CA), Donna Edwards (MD), Jan Schakowsky (IL), Bonnie Watson Coleman (NJ), John Conyers (MI), Mike Honda (CA), and John Lewis (GA). After the vote, Mark Pocan of Madison told us why he and many of his colleagues opposed the legislation. "This bill significantly expands mandatory minimum sentences. We are talking about ruining people’s lives with 20 year mandatory sentences without really thinking through the real issues of the war on drugs. Many of us in Washington are desperately trying to find ways to reform our criminal justice system and rectify the devastating effects of drug addiction, and adding these synthetic drugs as Schedule I is missing the larger point."



Similarly, Donna Edwards told us she sees the bill as "a sad step backwards at a time that the nation should be focused on reforms that roll back the flawed policies of mandatory minimum sentencing that contributed to mass incarceration. The bill adds 22 synthetic drugs to the federal schedule that could result in the imposition of mandatory minimum sentences. The problem of drug abuse that is so destructive to families and communities must be met with smart, fair, and balanced policies that invest in treatment rather than more incarceration."

The companion bill in the Senate was proposed by noted anti-civil libertarians Chuck Grassley and Chuck Schumer. Among the House Republicans more enlightened about how the criminal justice system is evolving than the very involved Schumer, not to mention Grassley, were pretty far right members of Congress like Dave Brat (VA), Tim Huelskamp (KS), Jason Chaffetz (UT), Mark Sanford (SC), Barry Loudermilk (GA), Mick Mulvaney (SC), Justin Amash (MI), Tom McClintock (CA), Raul Labrador (ID), Scott Garrett (NJ) and Mo Brooks (AL), not exactly "bleeding heart liberals."

Donna Edwards And The CBC

Although the Congressional Black Caucus's 501 (c)(4) has some CBC members on it, the board is primarily a gaggle of sleazy Beltway corporate lobbyists and consultants, not quite as bad as the notorious CBC PAC board, but not on the side of the angels by any stretch of any imagination. Conservative Democrat Angela Rye is on both boards. Wednesday morning the Bernie-hating Rye (of Impact Strategies), blasted "white progressives" on her Twitter account for pointing out that the CBC is a virtual vacuum cleaner for bribes from many of the worst corporate interests in Washington. According to investigative reporter lee Fang, she was responding to Black Lives Matter calling the CBC out for too cozy a relationship with Big Tobacco, although not even Rye could actually think someone is going to equate Black Lives Matter with the "white progressives" she hates with such a passion.

By February, political activists in the black community-- like Black Lives Matter-- were already denouncing the CBC for selling out to the Establishment by tacitly backing Chris Van Hollen's Maryland Senate race against CBC member Donna Edwards. The hate-filled Rye doesn't just hate Bernie and white progressives, she harbors an intense antipathy towards Donna Edwards and has worked with the corrupt Al Wynn to undermine Edwards at every opportunity. Needless to say corporate shills like Rye weren't comfortable reading this from Color of Change:

A Washington, DC Political Action Committee (PAC) that claims to speak for Black people but is really a mouthpiece for corporate power recently made two very big announcements that could impact important upcoming elections. Two weeks ago, the Congressional Black Caucus PAC, with it's lobbyist-dominated Board of Directors, made a high-profile endorsement of Hilary Clinton and quietly decided not to endorse, fellow CBC member, Rep. Donna Edwards' historic bid to become only the second Black woman to be elected to the Senate.


The lobbyists sitting on the CBC PAC’s board represent the worst of the worst-- companies that are notorious in the mistreatment and exploitation of Black people. The depth of corporate influence over the CBC PAC is so troubling because its endorsements carry the name of the Congressional Black Caucus, trading off a name that is wrapped in the moral authority of the civil rights movement. For hours, media incorrectly reported that the Congressional Black Caucus and not the CBC PAC endorsed Secretary Hillary Clinton for President. Meanwhile, the CBC PAC's corporate board members and donors who represent private prisons, big tobacco and the anti-worker National Restaurant Association were nowhere to be seen. This is wrong and the CBC must act to stop it now.


...The day following the endorsement in the Presidential race, Politico reported that the CBC PAC would not be endorsing Rep. Donna Edwards, a progressive hero, CBC member, and one of two Black women candidates in a competitive primary vying to become only the second Black woman ever elected to the U.S. Senate. According to reports, the decision was largely driven by CBC PAC board member, Al Wynn, the Congressman-turned-lobbyist who lost his seat to Edwards in 2008. Black voters ousted Wynn for his corporate ties back in 2008 but thanks to the corporate board of the CBC PAC, he is still speaking for Black people. If corporate lobbyists on the CBC PAC's board can decide to withhold support from someone like Rep. Edwards, why are they being allowed to operate under the banner of the Congressional Black Caucus?


Bought & Bossed


Although the Koch Brothers are absent, the lobbyists sitting on the CBC PAC’s board represent the worst of the worst-- companies that are notorious in the mistreatment and exploitation of Black people. As The Intercept reported:

Members of the CBC PAC board include Daron Watts, a lobbyist for Purdue Pharma, the maker of the highly addictive opioid OxyContin; Mike Mckay and Chaka Burgess, both lobbyists for Navient, the student loan giant that was spun off of Sallie Mae; former Rep. Albert Wynn, D-Md., a lobbyist who represents a range of clients, including work last year on behalf of Lorillard Tobacco, the maker of Newport cigarettes; and William A. Kirk, who lobbies for a cigar industry trade group on a range of tobacco regulations.


And a significant percentage of the $7,000 raised this cycle by the CBC PAC from individuals was donated by white lobbyists, including Vic Fazio, who represents Philip Morris and served for years as a lobbyist to Corrections Corporation of America, and David Adams, a former Clinton aide who now lobbies for Wal-Mart, the largest gun distributor in America.

Ironically, both Democrat Presidential candidates have shunned contributions from private prison lobbyists, while the CBC PAC remains silent about its relationship with them. The CBC PAC has taken thousands of dollars from Akin Gump, the lobbying firm that has made millions of dollars lobbying to protect their private prison client, Corrections Corporation of America over the last several years. Black caucus members should be leading, not following the disastrous trend towards more corporate control over government.


In addition, the CBC PAC has taken in even larger amounts directly from the Political Action Committees of harmful companies and industries. Anti-worker groups like the National Restaurant Association have given thousands to CBC PAC while they have worked to keep worker wages and benefits at a minimum. Other corporate donors include pay day loans company Cash America, Big Tobacco front group PURO PAC, and the telecommunications companies that worked to bring an end to an open and free internet.


As if it wasn’t bad enough to use the brand of the CBC as a front for corporate lobbyists, the CBC PAC board members used the event of their Presidential endorsement to deride young Black voters who may favor a different candidate. On a stage bought and paid for by some of the biggest corporations in America, Rep. G.K. Butterfield painted a picture of naïve and uninformed voters claiming “many of them are inexperienced and have not gone through a presidential election cycle before." Young Black voters were a decisive factor in securing victory for President Obama in both of his elections but the CBC PAC would rather criticize young people than their own corporate benefactors.


We saw this type of targeted corporate influence during the net neutrality debate, with big telecom lobbyists lining up to cut checks to Black leaders willing to destroy the open Internet. In fact many of the Black elected officials who opposed net neutrality also sit on the board of the PAC alongside bad corporations. This form of “civil rights washing”-- of wrapping dangerous policies in a cloak of support from Black gatekeepers-- cannot be trusted or lifted up as the voice of Black people.


... This isn’t about Hillary or Bernie, although they both have improved their stances on racial justice issues under pressure from the Black community and our allies, they still have room to grow. This is about changing the CBC PAC to stop it from representing itself as the voice of Black communities when it is dominated by some of the worst corporations for Black people.

Rachel Bade's Politico piece about Donna meeting with CBC members last week only scratches the surface of the tension between principled and dedicated legislators like Edwards who are in it to serve their constituents, and the careerist hacks who have very different priorities.

Only four of the 46 CBC members-- Reps. Gwen Moore of Wisconsin, Lacy Clay of Missouri, Robin Kelly of Illinois and Hank Johnson of Georgia-- are backing Edwards over Van Hollen, an unusually small number for a group known for standing by fellow African-American lawmakers. Meanwhile, Van Hollen has been making hay over his growing number of endorsements from black political leaders in Maryland, including some in Edwards’ district, though he has yet to be endorsed by a CBC member.

Edwards, who won her House seat by defeating Al Wynn, a popular member of the CBC, in a Democratic primary in 2008, has had a strained relationship with many black lawmakers from the start. But with she and Van Hollen running nearly neck-and-neck in a primary that many expected Van Hollen to win easily, Edwards has been reaching out over the past two weeks to members of the CBC to ask why they’re not backing her bid to be only the second black woman elected to the U.S. Senate. She’s also pressed her case with lawmakers at the Democratic Club restaurant, where members often eat.

Sources close to the CBC and lawmakers familiar with the conversations said some of Edwards’ CBC colleagues responded to her in frank terms. Members of the CBC have long considered her abrasive and said she’s not an easy colleague to work with.

“She has not developed good relationships with the members of the CBC, quite frankly,” said a source familiar with the CBC. “A lot of people find her difficult.”

Yes, people who want to get something done for the downtrodden and disadvantaged and who refuse to be bought by the "generous" corporate lobbyists who are as much the mainstay of the CBC as they are they mainstay of the New Dems and Blue Dogs, are always considered "difficult" by the Beltway elites who just want to see the pay-off rolling in smoothly. There is no greater sin in that world than successfully challenging a corrupt member who brought goodies to the table the way Al Wynn did-- and, now one of Washington's slimiest lobbyists-- still does. The corrupt conservatives who dominate the CBC have never forgiven Donna for ending his congressional career-- and for challenging him on a package of issues that could be used against most of them.

Angela Rye

True that only 4 CBC members endorsed Donna, but we found over a dozen who had contributed to her campaign, including stalwart progressives Barbara Lee (CA), Bonnie Watson Coleman (NJ) and Yvette Clarke (NY). But so did Jim Clyburn (SC), CBC Chair G.K. Butterfield (NC), Marcia Fudge (OH), Joyce Beatty (OH), Sanford Bishop (GA), Corrine Brown (FL), Hank Johnson (GA), Sheila Jackson Lee (TX), Bennie Thompson (MS), Cedric Richmond (LA), Robin Kelly (IL), Eleanor Norton Holmes (DC), Danny Davis (IL), Lacy Clay (MO) and Gwen Moore (WI). Gwen's endorsement flew in the face of the bullshit Rye, Wynn and the other corruptionist are spreading about her on Van Hollen's behalf. "I am proud to endorse my friend and colleague Donna Edwards for the United States Senate in Maryland. Over the years, I’ve worked closely with Donna to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, tackle income inequality, and stand up to the special interests that try to dismantle the middle class and hurt our most vulnerable. I know when Donna steps into the halls of the United States Senate, she’ll continue the fight to make sure women receive equal pay for equal work and that we protect the victims of domestic abuse, not the aggressors."

Edwards’ defenders, however, say her fellow CBC members should be rallying around a black woman who stands a decent chance of reaching the Senate, where only one Democrat-- New Jersey’s Cory Booker-- is African-American. They say her fellow House members are punishing her for failing to schmooze with CBC members on a regular basis-- and because Van Hollen is known to be close to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.

“Donna is about taking care of the business of governing-- and she is not particularly focused on backslapping and hobnobbing with everyone,” said Johnson. “Some members socialize, are very warm toward each other, play together, drink together and sit together on the floor-- and that’s fine. There are others who, for whatever reason, have a different trajectory, and I respect Donna for just being the person and representative that she is.”

Tuesday's the day. Van Hollen's bullying and avalanche of establishment money have worked to bolster his polling. If you know anyone in Maryland, please urge them to get out and vote for Donna Tuesday. The whole country needs her in the Senate. No one needs another cardboard cutout like Chris Van Hollen in the Senate or anywhere else.

Conservatives Are Still Working Across The Aisle To Wreck Social Security

As the Republican Party has, over the past 3 decades moved further and further right, a certain kind of conservative Democrat unenamored of a progressive world view, has moved in into to fill the void on the center-right that the GOP has abandoned for their more and more commonplace, Hate Talk Radio-driven extremism. Conservatives have always loathed Social Security and have tried to stop it and undermine it since it was first proposed. Ayn Rand Republicans like Paul Ryan are convinced from their adolescent adventures with her books that Social Security and other social safety net programs make Americans weaker and cost their wealthy political financiers too much in taxes. And Republicans have whined for decades that Democrats have used Social Security as a cudgel against them every time an election rolled around. Unfortunately, now that Blue Dogs, the DLC, Third Way and the Wall Street owned-and-operated New Dems has sullied the Democratic brand, voters are confused about which party stands for what.

Most, but not all, Democrats still abhor moving away from Social Security and conservative establishment Democrats who have tried doing it have gotten burned. Yesterday, at HuffPo, Daniel Marans wrote that conservative Dems who have backed Republican proposals to cut Social Security are being treated the way Democrats have long treated Republicans. It's stung corrupt establishment types like Patrick Murphy and Chris Van Hollen, both of whom have advocated for cuts to benefits. Murphy and Von Hollen, as well as other conservaDems have tried to dial back their support for Simpson Bowles and its proposals to wreck Social Security. Clinton has been very careful to pretend she's progressive on issues like Social Security while she's in a fierce primary battle with one of Congress' staunchest advocates for expanding it. But some incumbents from her wing of the party are finding themselves easy targets for progressives appealing to Democratic primary voters. Marans dealt mostly with Senate races, but this is playing out in the House primary battles as well.

Democratic Senate candidates in several key races are attacking their opponents for being weak on Social Security. Only this time their opponents are not Republicans-- they are Democrats in contentious primaries across the country.

Social Security is an issue of interest to voters in both parties that could play a role in this year’s elections.

But it is also a key front in a war for the soul of the Democratic Party in which the populist, progressive wing is increasingly on the march against the party’s business-friendly elite. And the popularity in this year’s primary season of running against even the slightest openness to Social Security cuts is the latest sign that the former group, sometimes nicknamed the Elizabeth Warren wing, is ascendant.

The campaign of California Senate candidate and state Attorney General Kamala Harris (D) is hinting it will soon play the Social Security card in earnest against her top opponent, Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.).

Harris’ campaign points to remarks by Sanchez expressing support for a “grand bargain” to reduce the debt modeled on the recommendations of the Bowles-Simpson commission, which was appointed by President Barack Obama. Major cuts to Social Security benefits, including raising the retirement age and cutting the cost-of-living adjustment, were among the bipartisan commission’s most controversial proposals.

“I mean, the reality is we do have to take a look at everything,” Sanchez told Fox News’ Megyn Kelly in October 2013, “as Simpson-Bowles did in their report and said, ‘Listen, you have got to put everything on the table-- entitlements, defense, everything else.’”

Sanchez added that she is “a member of the Blue Dog Coalition, that’s Democratic fiscal conservatives. And we endorse the Bowles-Simpson plan.”

Sanchez stands by her openness to broker a deal that includes Social Security cuts.

New Dems are less willing to publicly admit they're on the same page, but they are-- and that includes some of the most right-wing Democrats in the House, like Republican-lite Californians Ami Bera, Jim Costa and Scott Peters, each of whom was denied an endorsement by the California Labor Federation last week, as well as Sean Patrick Maloney (New Dem-NY) and, of course, Patrick Murphy (FL). Murphy's position on Social Security-- he's a rich spoiled Republican who recently decided to pretend to be a Democrat-- is typical of the New Dems. Watch:



"Grayson is pinning his hopes on a record of staunch opposition to Social Security cuts," wrote Marans, "and support for benefits expansion. Grayson told Politico Pro that Murphy became active as a freshman in 2013 in budget compromise efforts that would have cut Social Security." Murphy, panic-stricken, denies it and refuses to debate Grayson for exactly that reason.

Similarly Chris Van Hollen has also signaled he's willing to compromise away-- Republican style-- Social Security benefits the same way Murphy has. His progressive primary opponent, Rep. Donna Edwards, has voted against doing any such thing and her very first TV ad in the Senate race has been to remind Maryland voters that Van Hollen is no more their friend than Paul Ryan or Mitch McConnell are, each of whose stated positions-- to "save" Social Security by cutting benefits-- are identical to Van Hollen's (and Murphy's).

A Pew study released on March 31 found that opposition to Social Security cuts is the only position shared by a majority of the supporters of all of the presidential candidates in both parties.

So when liberal groups first began to mobilize against cuts in the Bowles-Simpson era, they found fertile ground for changing the policy conversation. Progressives argued that Social Security should actually be expanded to address a growing retirement income deficit.

Elizabeth Warren’s impassioned November 2013 speech embracing benefits expansion became a turning point that helped move the idea into the mainstream. The New York Times editorial board endorsed Social Security expansion in January. And both Democratic presidential candidates have pledged to increase benefits, not cut them.

Alex Lawson, executive director of Social Security Works, one of the groups that led the charge to make Social Security expansion a progressive priority, called the era when Democrats flirted with bipartisan deals to cut the program an “aberration.”

Democratic Senate candidates’ punishment of opponents who were part of those efforts in any way is a vindication of the political, as well as the “obvious policy and moral” argument Social Security Works has made since 2010, according to Lawson.

Lawson said putting a political price on past support for Bowles-Simpson “is not an ideological purity thing. This is about millions of Americans somehow getting by on benefits of $14, $15, $16,000 a year and elected officials thinking they can cut benefits.”

The founder of Lawson's outfit, SocialSecurityWorks is Eric Kingson, who is running for a Syracuse-based upstate New York congressional seat held by anti-Social Security Republican-- a would-be privatizer-- John Katko. Eric also has two plodding Democratic establishment primary opponents who are versions of Van Hollen and Murphy. Kingson is in no mood to compromise away the earned benefits of working men and women in need of the social safety net. In explaining what motivated his run for Congress, he told us, "No question, I want to keep fighting powerful interest groups advocating cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, when the average benefit of today’s retirees is just $16,000, and when these benefits need to be expanded, not cut.  I want to continue the work of blocking cuts and laying the foundation for expanding Social Security as an instrument of social justice... [D]don’t believe the 'chattering class' intonations about not being able to afford Social Security, that it is going broke. Social Security has three streams of income, two of them ongoing no matter what-- contributions from the earnings of workers and income from treating some Social Security benefits as taxable. It’s an extraordinary efficient system. Less than 1% of its expenditures go toward paying for its administration (hmm… imagine what percentages Wall Street and financial managers would take if they could get their hands on our Social Security!). Today’s Social Security expenditures represent only 5.1% of GDP; and will be roughly 6.2% of GDP at the height of the retirement of baby boomers in 2035 and about the same until the end of the century. As a growing number of Democrats propose, if Congress passed legislation requiring millionaires and billionaires to make the same payroll contribution of 6.2% on all their earnings (just like everyone earning under $118,500 do today), roughly three-quarters of the projected shortfall would disappear overnight. And there are many other reasonable revenue changes that can and should provide resources for expanding benefits for today’s workers and today’s Social Security beneficiaries."

Eric promises to work for a program of Social Security expansion that includes these 7 point:

• increase monthly Social Security benefits by roughly $100;
• assure that Social Security’s cost-of-living-adjustment fully maintains the purchasing power of benefits;
• strengthen Medicare, including adding dental, hearing and eyesight protections;
• expand home and community services that support people of all ages with severe disabilities and their caregivers;
• lower the age of eligibility for Medicare;
• increase minimum wages to a living wage which will result in more income today and a larger Social Security benefit in the future; and
• add paid family leave to Social Security to support those needing time away from work to care for family members or when sick.

That's very different from what the Blue Dogs, New Dems and Republicans want. Another Blue America-backed candidate on the same page as Eric is fighting the good fight clear across the country from Syracuse. Former Oregon state legislator Dave McTeague is taking on the head of the Blue Dogs, Kurt Schrader who gives idiots like Loretta Sanchez their talking points. Last June the Northwest Labor Press exposed Schrader by reminding Oregonians that two years earlier (2013) Schrader "introduced legislation directing President Obama to follow the unofficial Simpson-Bowles recommendations. The recommendations included cutting Social Security benefits, shifting Medicare costs to beneficiaries, lowering tax rates for the wealthy and corporations, and increasing tax incentives for shipping jobs overseas." Schrader referred to AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka as "a bully" for standing up for working families and retired seniors. Last night McTeague told us that "Social Security is the most important safety net program ever enacted in the United States. It provides a minimal but base level of income for senior and disabled persons, without which millions would be completely destitute. I strongly oppose any cuts and oppose all efforts to 'privatize' the system. I support Sen. Bernie Sander's plan to lift the cap on income taxed for social security purposes. This allows us extend the solvency of Social Security for the next 50 years. With this we will be able to to expand benefits by an average of $65 a month; increase cost-of-living-adjustments; and lift more seniors out of poverty. This will help millions of people and make the underlying taxation for Social Security more progressive."

Alex Lawson from SocialSecurityWorks pointed out yesterday that "Greedy liars on Wall Street have used income inequality to build wealth and power for decades. They have used this wealth and power to attempt to dismantle our Social Security system, Medicare, Medicaid, and any regulations that stand between them and consolidating more power." The DCCC and DSCC oppose all of these candidates and are working furiously to undercut them and bolster the election efforts of the Patrick Murphys, Chris Van Hollens, Kurt Schraders and the others from the Republican-wing of the Democratic Party. Please consider supporting Alan Grayson, Donna Edwards, Dave McTeague, Eric Kingson and the other Social Security expansion supporters on the list of candidates you'll see by clicking on this lovely blue thermometer:

The Revolution Comes To Maryland

Donna Edwards, Jamie Raskin, the pride of Maryland

Tuesday is the first day of early voting in the Maryland Democratic primaries. Blue America is strongly backing three candidates in the April 26-- Donna Edwards for the open U.S. Senate seat, Joseline Peña-Melnyk for the seat Donna is leave, and Jamie Raskin for the seat Donna' Wall Street-backed opponent, establishment shill Chris Van Hollen is giving up. Yesterday the editors of The Nation endorsed Donna and Jamie over their more conservative, old-school opponents. And they made an important point about Bernie's political revolution, that same point that inspired Blue America to start the Bernie Congress page.

Anyone looking for a political revolution knows that it’s going to take more than a presidential nominee-- and more than a president-- to remake the Democratic Party as a force capable not just of overcoming right-wing opposition, but also of securing economic and social justice. The results of Wisconsin’s April 5 primary, which gave Bernie Sanders the latest in a string of critical wins, will keep attention focused on the presidential primary, which now takes Sanders and Hillary Clinton to New York and, ultimately, to California. But progressives cannot focus on this race alone. They must use their votes-- and their organizing skills-- to elect a new generation of inside/outside activists who understand that their politics will be shaped in committee rooms and in the streets.

One of the first tests comes on April 26 in Maryland. Congresswoman Donna Edwards is running in a Democratic primary to fill the seat of retiring US Senator Barbara Mikulski (for more, see Joan Walsh’s “We’ve Had 1 Black Woman Senator in 227 Years.”), while State Senator Jamie Raskin is seeking an open House seat representing the suburban DC area. Both seats are likely to be won by Democrats this November, in a state that has not backed a Republican for president since 1988. In crowded primaries that feature a number of credible candidates, Edwards and Raskin stand out as the contenders who will quickly emerge as progressive leaders in their respective chambers. The Nation urges Maryland voters to support their candidacies-- just as, in the coming months, we’ll urge voters in other states to steer the Democratic Party and Congress to the left through the power of their ballots.

Edwards, the first African-American woman to represent Maryland in Congress, took an activist route to the House: She cofounded the National Network to End Domestic Violence and played a vital role in the struggle to enact the 1994 Violence Against Women Act. In key positions with Public Citizen, the Center for a New Democracy, and other groups, she has worked for decades with civil-rights, media-reform, labor-rights, peace, and social-justice movements. And she has brought this sensibility to her work as a member of the House, reaching out to Black Lives Matter activists and to campaigners for a $15-an-hour minimum wage, championing criminal-justice reform and gun control. She’s an advocate for fair trade and a foreign policy that emphasizes diplomacy and development, with a special focus on addressing poverty and climate change. As chair of the House Democratic Caucus’s Democracy for All Task Force, she’s been at the forefront of the movement for electoral reform. Indeed, after the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision removed all limits on corporate spending to influence elections, Edwards was the first member of Congress to propose a constitutional amendment to ensure that voters matter more than dollars.

Like Edwards, Raskin was an activist before he entered politics. As a constitutional-law professor at American University’s Washington College of Law and the founder, with the families of Thurgood Marshall and William Brennan, of the Marshall-Brennan Constitutional Literacy Project, Raskin has led fights for fair elections, voting rights, and broadening democracy. As a legislator, he has fought for marriage equality and against race and gender discrimination, defended civil rights and civil liberties, and won fights to protect the environment and expand protections for workers. In the class of new House members who will be seated in 2017, Raskin could join other public intellectuals, such as New York’s Zephyr Teachout and Washington State’s Pramila Jayapal, who recognize the vital importance of street-level activism-- and insurgent candidacies-- in pushing the Democratic Party and the House in a dramatically more progressive direction.

That prospect is exciting. But it will only be realized if progressive politics moves down the ballot. And the place to begin is in Maryland on April 26, with votes for Donna Edwards and Jamie Raskin.

Well said... and if you're feeling flush and want to chip in tp Donna Edwards' and Jamie Raskin's grassroots campaigns, just tap the thermometer below (where you will also find Joseline Peña-Melnyk, Zephyr Teachout and Pramila Jayapal). The key to a better government is electing leaders like these 4 women and 1 man.