Reforming Government-- Raúl Grijalva Wants To-- Pelosi And Her Team Want To Pretend They Do Too... But They Don't

 

McConnell's never going to allow the Senate to debate it and even if he did and it passed, Trump would never sign it. But that didn't stop Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ) from introducing new legislation to end the common practice of hiring lobbyists in a revolving door scheme that swampifies the executive branch-- and it's not just something corrupt Republican do. Corrupt Democrats do it too. Last week, writing for the American Prospect, David Dayen showed how Grijalva is forcing corporate conservative Democrats from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party "to take a stand on whether they will hold a potential Joe Biden administration to at least the same anti-corruption standard that Barack Obama held for himself as president."

Grijalva's new bill would "deny confirmation of any nominee to an executive branch position who is currently or has been a lobbyist for any corporate client or officer for a private corporation, in this or any future administration. That would include all Cabinet officials, and any of the roughly 1,200 Senate-confirmed positions throughout the federal government. The letter, endorsed by Demand Progress, the American Economic Liberties Project, the Revolving Door Project, and the Sunrise Movement, represents a baseline request for personnel in the next administration. Groups had proposed something similar to this for months, but not this sweeping a ban, and not with the full-throated support of a House committee chair."

The Grijalva rule is a stronger version of President Obama’s lobbyist ban. Under Obama, any registered lobbyist was barred from government service in the issue area where they lobbied until they had been unregistered for two years. On the way out, these officials couldn’t lobby the government for the remainder of the administration. Obama’s rule was a little leaky, as it didn’t apply to unregistered, de facto lobbyists who were obviously engaged in influence-peddling, lobbyists registered outside the two-year ban, or lobbyists hired for a government job outside their lobbying area.

It’s been long forgotten and is now somewhat risible, but Donald Trump also has a lobbying order in place, which replaced his predecessor’s. The Trump rule allows lobbyists into the government as long as they recuse themselves from anything they lobbied on for two years. It also allegedly bans former executive branch members from lobbying the government for five years, though it only applies to the agency where they worked.

According to one count, 281 lobbyists had worked in the Trump administration as of last October, including the secretaries of defense, interior, energy, labor, and homeland security, along with Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Andrew Wheeler. In addition, several former Trump officials found a way around the modest post-government lobbying ban.

The Grijalva rule tightens the Trump and even the Obama standard significantly. Not only is there no safe-harbor period for former lobbyists-- they’re out of government no matter how long ago they lobbied-- but the rule includes all officers of private corporations, of which there have been many in the past two administrations.

...Biden hasn’t committed even to restoring the weaker Obama-era order on lobbying, despite promising a kind of Obama restoration throughout his campaign. Numerous business types have been pitched for top slots in a Biden administration, and his transition team includes former Apple lobbyist Cynthia Hogan, Facebook director Jessica Hertz, and Jeffrey Zients, former Facebook board member and president of Cranemere, a conglomerate that buys and sells businesses. TIAA-CREF CEO Roger Ferguson and co-CEOs of Ariel Investments John Rogers and Mellody Hobson have also been mentioned as potential Cabinet-level officials.

Yesterday Grijalva told me that "No democracy can survive if it has one set of rules for the public and another for insiders. Americans have seen decades of special corporate favors and billion-dollar giveaways, and they won’t accept that as the natural state of things any longer. If we’re going to restore faith in our government, we have to end the revolving door, not just reverse it, and we have to end corporate government once and for all." We need to ask ourselves what the leaders of both parties find unacceptable about that premise-- and why they are so doggedly in favor of the status quo. 

Wednesday, the Washington Post ran a Pelosi-generated piece on House Democrats' unveiling "a sweeping package of reforms... designed to strengthen Congress’s ability to check the executive branch and prevent abuses of power, especially by the president." No mention of Grijalva or his proposal-- just more bullshit from Pelosi and her disgustingly GOP-like, corrupt leadership team. "The package," wrote Karoun Demirjian, "which its architects have informally referred to as “post-Trump reforms,” includes measures to restrain the president’s power to grant pardons and declare national emergencies, to prevent federal officials from enriching themselves, and to accelerate the process of enforcing congressional subpoenas in court. It also includes provisions to protect inspectors general and whistleblowers, increase penalties for officials who subvert congressional appropriations or engage in overt political activity, and safeguard against foreign election interference. Taken together, the proposals represent the Democrats’ long-awaited attempt to correct what they have identified as systematic deficiencies during the course of President Trump’s tenure and impeachment, in the style of changes Congress adopted after Richard Nixon left office. Unlike the post-Watergate reforms, however, which took years to enact, today’s House Democrats have collected their proposed changes under one bill reflecting several measures that have been percolating piecemeal through the House."

It's all about Trump and doesn't touch any of the systemic corruption that has made DC one of the swampiest cities on the planet. Pelosi and Hoyer should have learned a lesson from all the millions of Americans who voted for Trump in 2016. They're incapable of learning any such lesson.

Shahid Buttar is the San Francisco reformer running for Pelosi's seat in November; there's no progressive, just a contest between a corrupt garden variety Democrat and a real fighting progressive. Today, Buttar told me that "Unfortunately, Democrats have followed the Republican playbook in Washington for years. The bipartisan revolving door between K St. and Capitol Hill is the dirty secret of Washington-- and a big part of the reason why our government has grown so unresponsive to the needs of voters struggling to endure the compounding crises of our times."

He said he's "running to replace the leading corporate Democrat in part to help the party grow more responsive to grassroots concerns, and to help make our government more responsive to We the People. I’d be eager to support Rep. Grijalva’s bill in Congress, and to promote other checks and balances to limit and counteract corporate influence peddling in Washington."

Demirjian continued that "In a joint statement, seven committee chairs [though not Grijalva] signaled their legislation is intended to 'prevent future presidential abuses, restore our checks and balances, strengthen accountability and transparency, and protect our elections. It is time for Congress to strengthen the bedrock of our democracy and ensure our laws are strong enough to withstand a lawless president,' the statement says. 'These reforms are necessary not only because of the abuses of this president, but because the foundation of our democracy is the rule of law and that foundation is deeply at risk.' All good stuff... except for the steaming pile of hypocrisy sitting in the middle of the room in plain view.

Nate McMurray is the progressive Democrat in western New York taking on the newest slimy little Trumpist in Congress, hereditary multimillionaire Chris Jacobs, a complete knee-jerk kind of politician. Nate, in contrast, is an independent-minded leader who told me yesterday that "The Democratic leadership is not really well connected to working people and communities. And it really shows-- Democrats lost a lot of ground over the years at the state and local level. But the situation is fixable. The grassroots of the Democratic party has bold initiatives that excite and inspire voters to get involved, and the Democratic Leadership would do well to really listen."

Liam O'Mara is running for a southern California seat occupied by one of the most overtly corrupt members of Congress, Crooked Ken Calvert. When Fox News was looking for a corrupt slimebag to use as an example of DC corruption, they did a Mike Wallace special on Calvert's corruption. This morning Liam told me to call him old-fashioned or "an idealist; call me whatever you like-- but I believe that a government of the people, by the people, and for the people ought to serve only the people-- not corporations and wealthy special interests. Our elections need to be publicaly funded, and all lobbying, in the sense of contributions, needs to end." The topic boils his blood. He continued:

Lobbying used to mean catching someone in the lobby and pressing your case-- that's it! And advocates for bills make perfect sense to me. But when someone can come at you flush with cash from a corporation and say, please vote for things we like, and here's a million bucks to keep your job... that shit needs to be illegal. Now. Right fucking now.

We have hundreds of congresscritters taking vast amounts of cash for their campaigns, and that should be understood as bribery, plain and simple. A bribe is something offered in exchange for a decision in your favour. What else can we call it when someone takes a corporation's money, then votes to advance that same corporation's interests? It's a damned bribe!

I don't care which party you call home-- if you take a big wad of cash from someone and then push their legislative agenda, you are violating your oath to serve the people and the Constitution of this country. It's way past time for some changes. We need to apply the laws properly against bribery, pass a total ban on cash lobbying, introduce publicaly-funded elections, and, as the president disingenuously put it, drain the swamp!

 

Rich Members Of Congress Make Economic Policy That Assists Their Own Class-- At The Expense Of Normal People

Congress is filled with multimillionaires representing the interests of their own class. This past April, OpenSectrets.org entitled a news piece by Karl Evers-Hillstrom Majority of lawmakers in 116th Congress are millionaires. It skewers policy drastically in favor of the status quo and in favor of the rich and against the working class. And not all the multimillionaires are Republicans-- not by a long-shot. The 3 wealthiest members are all reactionary Republican enemies of working families-- Senator Kelly Loeffler (R-GA), Rep. Greg Gianforte (R-MT) and Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX). But the wealthiest Democrat in Congress, Senator Mark Warner (D-VA), also represents his class interests and has run-up one of the most conservative voting records of any Democrat in the Senate.

"While some lawmakers are still paying off student loans," wrote Evers-Hillstrom, "others are paying off their third or fourth mortgage. The group of wealthiest members includes career politicians who boosted their portfolios over decades in Congress and recently elected lawmakers." Before Georgia Governor Brian Kemp rewarded top GOP (and Brian Kemp) campaign contributor Kelly Loeffler (with half a billion dollars and crooked as the day is long) with her very own Senate seat, the richest member of the Senate was another egregious crook, Medicare swindler Rick Scott (R-FL).

Among the wealthiest members of the House are half a dozen being challenged by working class champions this cycle:

• Mike Siegel vs Michael McCaul (R-TX)- $113 million
• Andy Ruff vs Trey Hollingsworth (R-IN)- $50.1 million
• Julie Oliver vs Roger Williams (R-TX)- $27.7 million
• Shahid Buttar vs Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)- $16.0 million
• Jon Hoadley vs Fred Upton (R-MI)- $11.0 million
• Liam O'Mara vs Crooked Ken Calvert (R-CA)- $8.0 million

Why is this important? Alan Grayson was probably the most effective member of the House when it came to bolstering the interests of the working class, but he was one of the wealthiest members of Congress, although coming from a solid working class background in the Bronx. Same with Ro Khanna and Judy Chu today-- very wealthy but dedicated to the class they came from, not to the donor class. Yesterday, Megan Cassella, writing for Politico noted that "The path toward economic recovery in the U.S. has become sharply divided, with wealthier Americans earning and saving at record levels while the poorest struggle to pay their bills and put food on the table. The result is a splintered economic picture characterized by high highs-- the stock market has hit record levels-- and incongruous low lows: Nearly 30 million Americans are receiving unemployment benefits, and the jobless rate stands at 8.4 percent. And that dichotomy, economists fear, could obscure the need for an additional economic stimulus that most say is sorely needed."

Obscure? Sure, in the eyes of people who want that need obscured, like Mitch McConnell, an arch-crook and arch-reactionary worth an estimated $40 million. McConnell has been blocking a package of pandemic assistance for several months because it assists working families too much and too directly without doing enough, in his mind, for very wealthy GOP supporters. "The trend is on track to exacerbate dramatic wealth and income gaps in the U.S., where divides are already wider than any other nation in the G-7, a group of major developed countries," wrote Cassella. "Spiraling inequality can also contribute to political and financial instability, fuel social unrest and extend any economic recession. The growing divide could also have damaging implications for President Donald Trump's reelection bid. Economic downturns historically have been harmful if not fatal for incumbent presidents, and Trump's base of working-class, blue-collar voters in the Midwest are among the demographics hurting the most. The White House has worked to highlight a rapid economic recovery as a primary reason to reelect the president, but his support on the issue is slipping: Nearly 3 in 5 people say the economy is on the wrong track, a recent Reuters/Ipsos poll found."

"The economic inequities that began before the downturn have only worsened under this failed presidency," Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden said Friday. "No one thought they'd lose their job for good or see small businesses shut down en masse. But that kind of recovery requires leadership-- leadership we didn't have, and still don't have."

Recent economic data and surveys have laid bare the growing divide. Americans saved a stunning $3.2 trillion in July, the same month that more than 1 in 7 households with children told the U.S. Census Bureau they sometimes or often didn’t have enough food. More than a quarter of adults surveyed have reported paying down debt faster than usual, according to a new AP-NORC poll, while the same proportion said they have been unable to make rent or mortgage payments or pay a bill.

And while the employment rate for high-wage workers has almost entirely recovered-- by mid-July it was down just 1 percent from January-- it remains down 15.4 percent for low-wage workers, according to Harvard’s Opportunity Insights economic tracker.

...Trump and his allies have seized on the strength of the stock market and positive growth in areas like manufacturing and retail sales as evidence of what they have been calling a "V-shaped recovery": a sharp drop-off followed by rapid growth.

But economists say that argument fails to see the larger picture, one where roughly a million laid-off workers are filing for unemployment benefits each week, millions more have seen their pay and hours cut, and permanent job losses are rising. The economy gained 1.4 million jobs in August, the Labor Department reported Friday, but the pace of job growth has slowed at a time when less than half of the jobs lost earlier this year have been recovered.





Some economists have begun to refer to the recovery as "K-shaped," because while some households and communities have mostly recovered, others are continuing to struggle-- or even seeing their situation deteriorate further.

“If you just look at the top of the K, it’s a V-- but you can’t just look at what’s above water,” said Claudia Sahm, director of macroeconomic policy at the Washington Center for Equitable Growth. “There could be a whole iceberg underneath it that you’re going to plow into.”

The burden is falling heavily on the poorest Americans, who are more likely to be out of work and less likely to have savings to lean on to weather the crisis. While recessions are always hardest on the poor, the coronavirus downturn has amplified those effects because shutdowns and widespread closures have wiped out low-wage jobs in industries like leisure and hospitality.

"The burden is falling heavily on the poorest Americans," is a funny way of putting it. Is God making that happen? The luck of the draw? Immutable economic forces? Or is it policy directed by the members of Congress representing their own class? I asked Mike Siegel, a former teacher, union organizer and civil rights attorney, currently running for a central Texas House seat occupied by one of the wealthiest men in Congress, Michael McCaul (who married into a radio broadcasting fortune). "Everyone witnessed McCaul and this administration pull trillions of dollars out of thin air to backstop Wall Street and big corporations while they threw Main Street under the bus, said Mike this morning. "That's because their real constituency is the donors who fund their elections, plus opportunities for self enrichment. The wealthy donor class got their bailout and continue to do quite well while tens of millions of hard-working Americans are on the verge of homelessness with an active eviction crisis. This is not new for McCaul considering over 70% of his campaign is funded by Corporate PACs and special interests, and his personal wealth has increased over 940% while in public office. He voted to deregulate big banks while he had millions invested in companies like CitiGroup, Bank of America, and J.P. Morgan Chase. He refused to increase consumer credit card protections while heavily invested in Visa. He repeatedly worked to deregulate the securities industry, a top campaign donor group that he has millions invested in. We have to stop this kind of corruption by voting them out."

Shahid Buttar is running for a House seat occupied by the only Democrat on the list-- and he's holding her accountable in a way she never had been before. "My opponent in the general election, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi," he told me this morning, "has relentlessly promoted her class interests while abandoning the needs of Americans struggling to put food on the table and stay in their homes. She opposes universal healthcare, rent and mortgage cancellation, the proposed federal jobs guarantee, and a long overdue increase in the minimum wage. Meanwhile, Pelosi outrageously prioritized tax breaks averaging $1.6 million each for over 43,000 tax filers who claim more than $1 million a year in annual income. Our federal spending priorities are backwards. And corporate Democrats-- led by Pelosi-- are a big part of the problem." If you like what Buttar has to say, please consider contributing to his campaign here.

Why Hasn't Pelosi Pulled The Funding Bill For The Department Of Homeland Security?

Why hasn't the House Democratic Leadership pulled the bill for funding for Department of Homeland Security off the floor. It's supposed to be voted on next week? Are Pelosi and Hoyer actually contemplating funding an agency that is helping Trump deploy his private militia/secret police on our streets? Many people are wondering.

ACRE, the Action Center on Race and the Economy, is a campaign hub for organizations working at the intersection of racial justice and corporate accountability. They provide research and strategic support for organizations working on campaigns to win structural change by directly taking on the corporations that are responsible for pillaging communities of color, devastating working-class communities, and harming our environment. Maurice BP-Weeks, Co-Executive Director, was very clear about ACRE's reaction to Pelosi moving forward with the funding bill: "As Trump unleashes an all-out attack on our cities with his brutal, militarized, and out-of-control secret police, Democrats shouldn’t be appropriating another single penny for his out control and reckless fascist regime. Bringing any bill to the House floor to fund a DHS that is deploying a cold, calculated, and secret police force is not only unconstitutional, but also deeply immoral. Democrats ought to be pulling every lever they have in their power right now to defund and abolish Trump’s secret police not to pour more money into it. Unfortunately, their track record is lacking to say the least. Democratic leadership in the past supported some of the same heavily militarized DHS practices that disappeared, surveilled and terrorized the Muslim, Arab and South Asian communities around the country for decades, and refused to take action when undocumented people were detained in countless raids. We’re at another make or break moment for Democratic leadership. If despite all the calls to defund and abolish the police nationwide the House chooses to further fund Trump’s secret force, they will cement a leadership failure of epic proportions. The time for rhetoric and nuance is over."




PPP did a series of surveys for MoveOn, released this week, that show voters in Arizona, Maine, and North Carolina prepared to vote against Trump and his Senate enablers at least in part because of the way Trump is using military force against civilian protesters in Portland. "Majorities of voters in all three states," reported MoveOn, "oppose Trump’s militarized used of federal agents without identification, witnessed in Portland and pledged to expand into NYC, Baltimore, Detroit, Philly, and Chicago. And voters want Congress to act to rein Trump in on this front-- again, majorities in all states, and particularly strongly in North Carolina, where 61% of voters support the no-brainer policies included in Sen. Merkley’s Preventing Authoritarian Policing Tactics on America’s Streets Act (eg: must wear ID on uniform, no unmarked vans for detentions, etc.). This Resolution has 42 cosponsors in the Senate-- Tillis, McSally, and Collins are all absent... This is more evidence of the broader story we’ve all seen: Republicans in the Senate have been choosing Trump over their constituents and their country. Our poll also shows that this decision might cost Republicans their jobs and control of the Senate. In all three races, the Republican incumbents are trailing their Democratic challengers. 

• In Maine, Gideon leads Collins 47-42 (in the first poll since Gideon clinched the nomination).
• In North Carolina, Cal’s up on Thom 48-40.
• And in Arizona, Kelly leads McSally 51-42. 

If you follow Marianne Williamson on Twitter you have probably noticed that she is more than outraged by the Trump unconstitutional incursions in Portland and his threats to do the same thing in Albuquerque and Chicago. A few days ago she used a longer form to write that Trump has announced that his goon squad is "going to go into American cities with high crime rates and fill them up with militarized agents who will fix all that. How, exactly? Well, no one is sure, because violent criminals don’t wear signs that say, 'Me! I’m the bad guy! Come get me!' Our esteemed crime-busters from DHS will presumably do what they’ve done in Portland: pretty much take anyone around and grab them into unmarked vans, in one of those 'proactive arrests' meant to make people aware that they should not and will not do anything criminal… such as… standing around in public after 10pm. The situation would be funny if it weren’t so dangerous. My biggest fear-- I’m sure everyone’s biggest fear if they think about it-- is that someone’s going to get killed in all this. And then, my fellow Americans, expect all hell to break loose. The giant of the American spirit has been slow to awaken to the deeper problems in our midst, but it’s awakened now. And she’s pissed."

I don’t think the president’s goons from the Department of Homeland Security (I always thought that name was creepy), untrained though they apparently are, are being told to shoot lethal weapons at protestors. But that’s not the point. Situations like this are volatile and they shouldn’t even be happening. Only in a dictatorship do squads of secret police invade cities, presumably to establish “law and order” but doing nothing but spreading chaos and fury.

When running for president, at my CNN Town Hall I said we needed to be aware of the risk of encroaching fascism. No wonder the political status quo didn’t think those the words of a serious candidate, huh? But what an insane system calls crazy might not be, and what it calls sane might be what is bound to drive all of us crazy. Such is the state of America today.

Am I hopeful? Yes, because hope is a moral imperative. Am I cynical? No, because to me that’s an excuse for not helping. In truth, I think that in the long run we’re going to be more than okay; I think we’re going to be magnificent. I think we’re going to have Lincoln’s proverbial “new birth of freedom.” But not immediately, not easily, and not without pain. Not in the short term, and perhaps not even in the middle term. There’s no reason to expect things will not get ugly very, very soon. The president is sending his troops to cities whose citizens simply will not have it.

Nor should they. This has gone too far. There are times when you have to draw a line, and now is such a time. A dangerous man is trying to destroy our democracy and we must not let him. America does not belong to him; it belongs to us. And millions of us are buckling up.

After she ended her presidential run, Marianne endorsed several progressive candidates for Congress this cycle. I asked a few of them if they're as disturbed by Trump's display of aggressive authoritarianism as she is. You can probably imagine that Shahid Buttar, running for the San Francisco seat occupied by Pelosi, is incensed. He told me that "the democracy of which we are rightfully proud is fragile. It has sustained brutal damage at the hands of Republicans-- and Democrats-- who have openly embraced authoritarian policies for generations. Mass incarceration, domestic surveillance, indefinite detention, executive secrecy, and militarized police are all facets of a problem far worse than the sum of its parts: fascism. The generations that preceded us fell asleep at the switch, but the sordid abuses of an aspiring tyrant have awakened in America a memory of our civic commitments. Today, from Portland to Washington, we are taking action reclaim our sovereignty, resist the unconstitutional orders of a criminal president, and hold the corporate opposition accountable for having funded authoritarian agencies for decades without meaningful oversight. I’m disgusted by our so-called leaders, and horrified by their mounting violations of our rights. At the same time, the growing movement to defend democracy makes me immensely proud of We the People of the United States."

West Virginia progressive Cathy Kunkel notes that even in the most Trump-friendly state, Trump has been turning toxic. "Congressman Alex Mooney has spent the last four years," she told me, "defining himself by his support for President Trump. And here in West Virginia-- as around the country-- voters are not impressed by Trump's handling of the pandemic. Running on Trump's coattails is not the strategy it was 4 years ago."

Eva Putzova, a former Flagstaff, Arizona City Council member, lived in Slovakia at one time and this authoritarian outburst from the dying-- but very dangerous-- embers of Trumpism is not her first brush with fascis, something she tweeted about yesterday. This morning she told me that "Trump's Homeland Security forces are no different than KGB, STASI, and my home country's ŠTB. What we see in the U.S. cities today is what we fought against in 1989 in former Czechoslovakia. I'm extremely worried about Trump's abuse of power and the long-term effects it can have on our democracy, especially when we consider how the public health crisis limits people's appetite to protest that power."

History professor and Riverside County congressional candidate Liam O'Mara noted that his district, the 42nd "has been changing along with the rest of Riverside, but went for Trump from a combination of progressive apathy and Trump's own populist rhetoric. But while he claims to stand for the common man, all he cares to do is line his own pockets and funnel taxpayer cash to the oligarchy. And that's totally Ken Calvert's jam. For 28 years now, #CrookedKenCalvert has been serving his corporate owners in the defense and real estate industries, and actively making life harder for people in the 42nd. He likes to brag that he's helped with freeway congestion, but what he's actually done is helped developers throw up bedroom communities for commuters, thus creating that traffic, and then funneled jobs to contractors to deal with the same traffic... and never mind all the pollution. People are starting to get wise to Calvert's lies, and his full-throated support for reopening schools is just to help Trump's own play for reëlection. Crooked Ken doesn't care if kids die or get permanent lung damage, or if they bring the infection home to vulnerable family members. He cares only about serving Trump and the oligarchy. And people are talking about it. Is DC a swamp of corruption? Oh yeah. And we could have started draining it four years ago by electing Bernie Sanders. Instead we elected a swamp-monster like Trump, who brought in dozens of lobbyists to top jobs. Naturally, the long-term corrupt like Calvert drifted into his orbit, and now we have to knock them both out in November."

David Kim, is a progressive Democrat running for Congress in Los Angeles, promising a more activist and grassroots approach to governance than the incumbent, Jimmy Gomez. "As an immigration attorney who defends people fleeing dangerous governments," said Kim this morning, "I am incredibly saddened and disturbed by Trump's escalating displays of authoritarianism. I am equally disgusted that Congress has taken no proactive measures to address the current situation, such as pulling the bill for funding DHS off the floor. If our leaders allow Trump to oppress and silence the people with his fascist goon squad, then they, along with Trump, will be sent home in November by a mass of voters fed up with our morally bankrupt system. The American people cannot, must not, and will not let this country devolve into an authoritarian dystopia."

This week Ted Lieu (D-CA) and Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) introduced a bill in the House to restrict the ability of the U.S. Marshals Service to deputize other federal employees to perform the functions of a Deputy U.S. Marshal. The bill would also prohibit the Attorney General from designating Drug Enforcement Administration officers to enforce federal laws outside of their Title 21 authority. The bill allows for an exception when the federal support is requested by the state governor. The bill is in response to what the Trump goon squad has been doing in Portland, a city represented by Blumenauer. Lieu noted that "What happened in Washington, DC and Portland is outrageous... We cannot allow this Administration or any future one to abuse its authorities against Americans practicing their First Amendment right to protest. In light of reports that the Trump Administration may use authoritarian tactics in additional cities around the country, we are working at breakneck speed to reign in this unfettered and troubling use of force."

Blumenauer sees right through what Trump has been up to, "From the dramatic influx of unnecessary federal agents, to the egregious use of violent tactics, it’s clear that the Trump Administration’s goal in Portland is to inflame tensions for political gain, rather than to keep our city safe. No community should face such a siege from the very people sworn to protect them. In order to ensure the rights of all Americans, it’s clear that we must fundamentally change the way federal officials can be deployed and used."

Alan Grayson Wrote Legislation To Demilitarize The Police In 2014... Pelosi, Hoyer, Clyburn And Their Allies Made Sure It Failed

They were ready to roll the tanks if she got too frisky

Every Member of Congress loves-- or, until this month, used to love-- photo ops of them "delivering" goodies to their local police departments. They never consider that those goodies might one day be used against their own constituents. In August, 2014, garden variety policy brutality and murder brought on the "Ferguson unrest." Two months earlier, Alan Grayson introduced H.R. 4870, an amendment to an appropriations bill that attempted to demilitarize the police. Alan told me at the time that he bent over backwards to make it clear it was not about guns and ammunition. His amendment would have prevented the military-- under Clinton era's disastrous 1033 Program-- from sending local police departments "aircraft (including unmanned aerial vehicles), armored vehicles, grenade launchers, silencers, toxicological agents (including chemical agents, biological agents, and associated equipment), launch vehicles, guided missiles, ballistic missiles, rockets, torpedoes, bombs, mines, or nuclear weapons." So... all the guns they needed but... no tanks, guided missiles or nukes (to use against American civilians). Although Grayson managed to round up 62 supporters, there were 355 no votes, including, I might add, Lacy Clay, who supposedly represents Ferguson, Missouri.

Today Grayson told me that "After it was voted down, two months later, Ferguson happened.  We all saw tanks and militarized police there, on city streets. Two different Members of Congress came over to me and asked me, 'how did you know that was going to happen?'  I was too polite to give them my real answer. My real answer was: 'how did you not know that was going to happen?'... I introduced the Grayson amendment to keep [heavily military weapons] out of the hands of police because I have eyes, and I can see. What I see is endemic and pervasive racism, certainly not only in law enforcement, but in every corner of society, from umbilical cord to tombstone. When you put armored vehicles and drones into the hands of people who already have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force, isn’t it obvious in which neighborhoods they will be used? And if that’s not obvious, in which neighborhoods do you actually SEE them used? Neighborhoods of lefthanded people? Neighborhoods of redheads? Neighborhoods of people who prefer paper over plastic? No; you see them used in African-American neighborhoods, treating human beings in ways that we don’t even treat cattle."

After Ferguson, then-President Obama enacted Grayson's amendment by executive order and it was in place... until 2017, when Trump reversed the order and gave the Pentagon the green light to start selling "excess" military equipment to local police forces again. The other day, AOC was wondering aloud on Twitter why the Pentagon has so much "excess." Meanwhile, Trump's tiny pecker gets hard just thinking about scenes like this:

Since 2014, the program has facilitated the transfer of over $5 billion in "excess" military equipment to the police. Many people who are talking about "defunding" the police are specifically talking about that money.

One of the members who happily strutted up to the House well to vote against Grayson's amendment was was Albio Sires, reactionary New Dem of New Jersey. I asked his progressive opponent this cycle, Hector Oseguera, how he and Sires differ on the police problem. "You might wonder why some of these elected officials call themselves Democrats at all," he told me this morning. "My primary opponent was actually a registered Republican until the mid-90's, he regularly votes for Trump's war budgets, and recently voted to let the NSA read your browser history, so it's no surprise he's a fan of militarized policing. I stand as the polar opposite, and recently released a Social Justice platform that includes ending Qualified Immunity, and demilitarizing our local police forces, all things my opponent refuses to fight for. There is no legitimate reason to have a police force armed with chemical weapons, and ballistic missiles, but that's exactly what my primary opponent sought to allow. In a democracy, we should not accept the mixing of our police and military forces. Unfortunately, that's what Democrats like my primary opponent, constantly seek to do."

As long as we're discussing Grayson, I might as well bring up that he endorsed Mike Siegel (TX-10) for Congress. "Mike cares about the right things, which means that he can make a difference. Talk to any number of Democratic Members of Congress or candidates for any length of time, and you’ll realize that there are startling differences in what they say are important to them. Many Democrats neuter themselves, before they even get elected, because they can’t even articulate anything real, realistic and meaningful that they would like to achieve in office. Know what matters matters-- you can’t possibly accomplish anything useful if you don’t even know what you want to do. If you listen to Mike Siegel, you realize quickly that his head’s on straight, he’s got the right attitude, and that gives him a real chance to get good things done."

Pelosi is suddenly leading efforts to reform the way the police do their jobs, but in 2014 she made sure Grayson's amendment failed. I asked her progressive opponent, Shahid Buttar, how he and Pelosi differ on the police problem. "The biggest difference between me and Nancy Pelosi," he told me today, "is that she settles for acts of theater to advance her career dedicated to her corporate donors, whereas I am concerned about our communities-- and have dedicated my career to defending them, not only through legal activism, but with my body in the streets, as well. I’ve been an active participant in the movement for black lives since before the Ferguson  uprising, and announced in 2018 a policy platform including support for demilitarizing police, ending qualified immunity, and creating a national registry of violent police. We’re glad that-- as she has on so many other issues, from labor rights and congressional war powers to executive accountability and election security-- Speaker Pelosi has adopted some of our positions despite her earlier intransigence. Despite her recent shifts, however, she remains well behind the movement’s demands to defund police departments and end the disturbing phenomenon of private prisons, which we have also supported. Our communities need voices in Congress for whom solidarity is not a political stratagem, but rather a reflection of our longstanding commitments." That's why DownWithTyranny's only endorsed candidate so far this cycle is Shahid. You can help support his campaign at this link.

Marianne Williamson Has A Weeklong Summit Starting Tonight With Congressional Candidates

Starting tonight at 9 PM (ET)-- so 6 PM on the West Coast-- Marianne Williamson will be hosting a week-long summit for progressive Congressional candidates on her Facebook page-- one candidate each night. Her first guest, someone she has already shared a stage with in Iowa, is J.D. Scholten, the progressive Democrat who nearly beat neo-fascist and racist Iowa Republican Steve King, in 2018. That was a race sabotaged by the DCCC but so much momentum was built up by Scholten's grassroots campaign that this year not even progressive-hating DCCC chair Cheri Bustos will be able to stop J.D.

Monroe County, NY progressive Robin Wilt will be on with Marianne on Saturday. Today she told me that "At the heart of Marianne Williamson’s run for the Presidency was a commitment to humanitarianism that was lacking from many of the corporate, establishment-based candidates in the race. I am proud to be among the down-ballot candidates that Marianne Williamson has endorsed, because we share the fundamental belief that we can only make progress if we center the needs of those most directly impacted by the deleterious policies that have created the inequities that we witness. As Marianne will be the first to tell you, the ideas at the center of her platform are not novel. They are supported by a majority of everyday Americans who recognize that the vast wealth and income inequality that plagues our nation is not sustainable, and that we need representatives at all level of government who are willing to prioritize the needs of the people over those of corporate elites that have been disproportionately and unfairly benefiting from government largesse at our expense."

We need expanded and improved Medicare for All, not only because it is inhumane for 45,000 Americans to die each year from a lack of access to health care, but also because our for-profit, atomized health care landscape fails to address the many social determinants of health that are the root causes of preventable diseases.

We need a Green New Deal, not only because it is inhumane for communities like Flint, MI and Newark, NJ to have poisoned air and water, but also because we need a solution to the current crisis that recognizes the scale of the threat to civilization and transitions to a green economy that ensures that those communities that have been disproportionately impacted by polluters receive the support they need to equitably share in the economic opportunities of a green economy.

We need publicly-funded, freely available pre-K through 16 education because it is inhumane for one’s educational opportunity to be determined by one’s zip code.

Most importantly, we need bold, new representatives in Congress that will unabashedly support these policy positions on behalf of the people that they represent, because our current leadership has not been up to the task.

"Slavery is a crime against humanity," said Shan Chowdhury, who is running for a seat in Queens held by corrupt New Dem Greg Meeks and Marianne's Sunday guest. "The path to restorative justice begins with the United States acknowledging our past crimes against Americans of African descent, whose ancestors were transported here against their will and enslaved. Meaningful and transformative reparations begins with implementing a Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC). I believe prioritizing access for African Americans to services, fully-funding Black institutions such as Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU), Community Banks, and Black Owned Businesses, central to racial, social, and economic justice."





Shahid Buttar, the attorney and community organizer who is taking on Nancy Pelosi, will be joining Marianne on Friday. This morning he told me that "One of the overarching themes that unite our campaigns is our shared recognition of social justice as an extension of mutual concern and compassion. That, in turn, drives our shared commitment to universal healthcare, as well as ending police violence and ensuring that black lives matter-- not just to We to the People, but also the government that answers to us. We’re excited to get into the issues and explore why change is so desperately needed!"

This is the whole schedule-- at least for week 1:

• J.D. Scholten- Tuesday, June 2
• Andrew Romanoff- Wednesday, June 3
• Hector Oseguera- Thursday, June 4
• Shahid Buttar- Friday, June 5
• Robin Wilt- Saturday, June 6
• Shan Chowdhury- Sunday, June 7
• Jen Perelman- Monday, June 8

You can contribute to any of the Marianne-endorsed candidates by clicking on the ActBlue thermometer. Whether Trump is re-elected (or gets away with stealing the election) or Biden is elected, one thing we are going to need in Congress is more progressives to work with the handful of members-- like AOC (D-NY), Ro Khanna (D-CA), Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), Ted Lieu (D-CA), Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), Jamie Raskin (D-MD), Ilhan Omar (D-MN), Andy Levin (D-MI), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), Raul Grijalva (D-AZ)...-- trying to move a progressive agenda forward and trying to move the Democratic Party in a progressive agenda and away from corporatism, careerism and corruption.

Progressives Team Up With Conservatives To Scuttle Pelosi's Orwellian Domestic Spying Bill

Progressives in Congress worked with the GOP Tuesday to torpedo an authoritarian domestic spying bill-- already passed by the Senate-- that Pelosi, Hoyer and Schiff were trying to push through the House. By late that night, Pelosi and her team read the tea leaves and pulled their own bill that was meant to reauthorize key parts of FISA. Trump, for his reasons-- remember he had signed the FISA legislation into law last year-- had threatened to veto the bill hours before Pelosi cancelled the vote on it.

As Ryan Grim pointed out, "earlier this month, the Republican-led Senate failed to pass a measure that would limit the FBI’s ability to access web-browsing history and other online activity without a warrant by a single vote... Civil libertarians, led by Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) pushed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to allow an up-or-down vote on that amendment, then send it back to the Senate, where it could pass with all senators voting. Pelosi instead told Lofgren to negotiate with House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff (D-CA) the New York Times reported, and Schiff watered down the legislation. The result drew criticism from the left and right-- and Trump’s attention to the fight. Had Pelosi agreed to a simple up-or-down vote on the Senate amendment, it likely would have passed easily, and reauthorization of the broad surveillance authorities, along with some real reforms, would be on their way to becoming law."

The politics of surveillance, even in normal times, scramble the typical partisan tendencies, with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Pelosi, and Schiff often aligning on questions about the breadth and depth of state power to surveil and track Americans. Opposing those congressional leaders is the civil liberties community, which includes both progressives and conservatives with libertarian leanings, but which rarely can muster a majority in Congress for its defense of the Bill of Rights.

The civil liberties argument has gained new traction in recent months, with Trump’s outrage over the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance, or FISA, court’s handling of surveillance of his campaign, particularly the deeply flawed application for a warrant to surveil former adviser Carter Page. Although it was initially designed to review intelligence surveillance applications for suspected agents of a foreign power, after 9/11 the secretive FISA court signed off on expansive interpretations of surveillance law. Now, as Trump feels victimized by it, he and his allies have found religion on the question.

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX), a famously eccentric conservative in the House, remarked at a Rules Committee hearing Wednesday morning on the oddity of House Democrats fighting to give Trump surveillance powers he wasn’t asking for, despite his clear determination to use law enforcement for his own political ends.

“It sure seems strange to me. For Democrats to vote for this reauthorization, even with these amendments, would have to be sort of saying, we have so much trust in Donald Trump and the people he’s appointed that they would never lie to a FISA court. They would never just go after their enemies. We feel like he can be trusted and so can all the people he’s appointed,” he said. “We know he’s cleaned out some folks at the Justice Department, FBI, I mean, think about it.”

The unlikely coalition of Trump and the civil libertarians was enough to stall the legal reauthorization of the FBI’s “call detail records” program, an amended version of the Patriot Act that allowed federal law enforcement to collect phone records. The authority lapsed in March after McConnell was unable to force through an unamended reauthorization.

Earlier this month, the Senate reauthorized those programs with additional restrictions, but an amendment that would limit the government’s ability to collect internet browsing history without a warrant fell one vote short of the 60 votes it needed to pass.

Pelosi then instructed Schiff to come up with a compromise version with Lofgren, rather than allow an up-or-down vote on the Senate language. The result of those negotiations was an amendment, introduced by Lofgren and Rep. Warren Davidson (R-OH) that reintroduced the restriction on collecting browsing history, but applies it only to U.S. persons.

However, Lofgren’s and Davidson’s amendment leaves up to interpretation what federal agents should do when they don’t know ahead of time whether U.S. persons’ information would be swept up in information requests-- giving the secretive FISA court room to allow bulk collection and task the FBI with purging U.S. person information afterward. The agreement broke down when Schiff and Lofgren offered different interpretations of their measure.

“If the government wants to use a dragnet and order a service provider to produce a list of everyone who has visited a particular website, watched a particular YouTube video, or made a particular search query, it cannot seek that order unless it can guarantee that the business records returned will contain no U.S. person IP addresses, or other U.S. person identifiers,” Lofgren said at a Rules Committee hearing Wednesday morning. That interpretation was enough to win the backing of Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR).

In a statement, Schiff said that the amendment prohibited orders that “to seek to obtain” U.S. persons’ browsing information, leaving open the possibility that the FBI could seek to collect visitor logs from a website that contained Americans, as long as that was not their primary purpose.

Statements like that, noted Charlie Savage in The Times, can be used by judges to determine legislative intent and confounded what had appeared to be a settled issue.

That led to pushback from both the left and right, and the renewed attention not only risked reforms that had been won in the Senate and failed to win support for the amendment Schiff advocated for, but it also drew a veto threat from Trump. Wyden, who co-sponsored the failed amendment in the Senate, withdrew his support, saying in a statement that it “flatly contradicted the intent” of his amendment in the Senate, and urged the House to consider his version.

...David Segal, executive director of Demand Progress, which lobbied against the legislation, said that Pelosi and Schiff’s apparent own goal came from too close of an alliance with the national security establishment, which, he argued, “has led them to line up against reforms that could have passed, and in support of a bill that harms Americans, might not pass, and would likely be vetoed.”

...The opposition of a vast majority of Republicans gifted the CPC a fresh opportunity to flex its muscles in the House, after a disappointing effort to influence coronavirus relief packages. Trump’s turn against surveillance authorities has produced enough Republican opposition that a concerted effort by progressives could block passage. Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Wisc., a CPC co-chair, told The Intercept that the caucus was urging its 92 members to vote no. “We have grave concerns that this legislation does not protect people in the United States from warrantless surveillance, especially their online activity including web browsing and internet searches,” said Pocan and fellow co-chair Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., in a statement later on Wednesday afternoon. “Despite some positive reforms, the legislation is far too narrow in scope and would still leave the public vulnerable to invasive online spying and data collection.”

...The opposition of a vast majority of Republicans gifted the Congressional Progressive Caucus a fresh opportunity to flex its muscles in the House, after a disappointing effort to influence coronavirus relief packages. Trump’s turn against surveillance authorities has produced enough Republican opposition that a concerted effort by progressives could block passage.

Rep. Mark Pocan (D-WI) a CPC co-chair, told The Intercept that the caucus was urging its 92 members to vote no.

“We have grave concerns that this legislation does not protect people in the United States from warrantless surveillance, especially their online activity including web browsing and internet searches,” said Pocan and fellow co-chair Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) in a statement later on Wednesday afternoon. “Despite some positive reforms, the legislation is far too narrow in scope and would still leave the public vulnerable to invasive online spying and data collection.”

For now, the Patriot Act provisions remain dead-- as do the reforms included in the underlying bill (some of which extend beyond the Patriot Act). All because Pelosi and Schiff insist on letting the FBI access browser history without a warrant, not what people who don't watch carefully would ever expect from either Pelosi or Schiff.

Ryan Cooper asked a salient question that Democrats should be asking themselves: If Trump is a budding autocrat-- and we all know he is-- shouldn't Democrats limit his surveillance powers?. "Why in God's name," he asked, "did Democrats even consider giving President Donald Trump-- the man they recently impeached for abuse of power-- more unaccountable surveillance powers? Over his own objection, no less?"

Schiff himself was the leader of the impeachment prosecution of Trump just a few months ago. In a long speech before the Senate, Schiff argued that the Founding Fathers had put impeachment into the Constitution specifically to deal with someone like Trump: "a man who would subvert the interest of the nation to pursue his own interests. For a man who would seek to perpetuate himself in office by inviting foreign interference and cheating an election." Even on the extremely narrow grounds chosen by House Democrats (which left out his most egregious looting of public coffers) Trump undoubtedly deserved to be removed from office.

But Schiff doesn't seem to actually believe his case against Trump. There is no possible justification for granting a corrupt, election-cheating president-- one who appointed a dishonest stooge as the nation's chief law enforcement officer-- the power to root through anyone's browser history without a warrant. Indeed, all the enormous powers of the surveillance state (which accomplish little or nothing of value) are exceptionally dangerous in the hands of Trump, and Democrats should be working frantically to scale them back. So far it appears we have gotten lucky in that Trump doesn't appear to grasp what these powers are for or how he might exploit them fully, but that situation is not guaranteed to hold.

Indeed, Trump's own objections remove the only possible political justification for passing this bill-- that Republicans would call Democrats soft on terrorism. They could shelve the bill, point to Trump, and shrug. Not their fault Trump didn't want these powers extended.

But in reality, Democrats like Schiff have completely swallowed the worldview of the national security establishment. Dragnet surveillance, like semi-randomly assassinating people up to and including American citizens, are some of the Important Tools that Keep Us Safe. The danger of a corrupt imbecile in the White House abusing those powers does not fit into this worldview, so it is ignored. If there is a choice between bowing before American imperial power and recognizing the danger of that power, they will choose the former, even when a game show demagogue is in the White House.

UPDATE From San Francisco: 

I just heard from Shahid Buttar, the progressive attorney and community organizer who is challenging Pelosi in November (having-- like her-- won the jungle primary in March). "It's entirely unacceptable—- and equally unsurprising—- that Nancy Pelosi has yet again used her formidable influence on Capitol Hill to enable authoritarian surveillance powers," he told us. "The reason I felt forced to run to replace Pelosi was her longstanding opposition to surveillance reforms on which I've worked for over a decade. What's new this year is the presence of a right-wing aspiring tyrant in the White House, and a bipartisan block of policymakers willing to do the right thing and challenge the institutional establishment that has rammed these powers through Congress on nearly a dozen occasions over the past decade without ever allowing a transparent debate. It is shameful that Pelosi supported the Republican position on FISA reauthorization. Pelosi's support for GOP positions also represents a profound threat to our democracy. Under the administration of a criminal president with no respect for the rule of law, we need resistance for real in Congress, not partisan posturing paving the road to fascism."

There Really Is A Reason We Have Primaries-- Too Bad So Few People Use Them

Do you watch the Humanist Report much? If not, maybe you should. In the video above, host Mike Figueredo successfully explains why progressives need to show some spine when it comes to dealing with foot draggingly corporate careerist Democrats, especially in leadership. As you know, Marianne Williamson has endorsed Shahid Buttar, who's running against Nancy Pelosi, Mckayla Wilks, who is running against Pelosi's top lieutenant, Steney Hoyer, and Jen Perelman, who is taking on faded party leadership figure Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Look at Marianne's list of candidates; 14 of them are taking on entrenched Democratic incumbents.

One senior congressional Democrat, a progressive, didn't agree that anyone can lump Pelosi and Hoyer together. "It's like apples and hand grenades," he told me. "And to have this video come out within 24 hours of her calling Trump a "fat fuck" is bad timing. Would anyone else call Trump a "fat fuck!"

Yesterday Shahid Buttar told us that he's "incredibly grateful for Marianne Williamson's support. Having seen her as a voice encouraging empathy at the highest levels of our national politics, I'm eager to build a brighter future together with her-- finally putting people and communities, rather than corporations, at the center of our public policy. Often, it takes a voice like hers, from the outside of politics, to see so clearly what the root of the problem is in Washington-- entrenched Democratic so-called leaders like Nancy Pelosi who are our immediate hurdles to progress. I'm impressed by Marianne's courage in joining me to take on the top brass of political corruption, and I hope other figures in the Democratic Party have the strength to follow in her footsteps."

Well, one of those figures is Eva Putzova who served on the Flagstaff City Council and as a Bernie DNC delegate. Now she's running for Congress in a district (AZ-01) held by former Republican state legislator Tom O'Halleran, who now bills himself as a Blue Dog. He opposes everything the Democratic Party stands for. Eva told us that she "became a U.S. Citizen in 2007 and the day after the naturalization ceremony I registered to vote as a Democrat because I am a democrat. Then in 2016, I went to the DNC as a delegate for Bernie Sanders, which opened my eyes to how the party leadership at both national and state levels is enmeshed with corporate interests and how the only way we can reclaim Democratic Party for democrats is to replace those who are bought by corporations. So many young people we talk to on the campaign trail are turned off by conversations about policies because they are turned off by the corrupted politics. I'm challenging the most Republican Democrat in Arizona precisely for these reasons: his votes and inaction on the most enormous challenges we face, like climate change, are a direct reflection of his support of the corporate agenda. The top Democratic Party representatives in Congress lost their ability to lead with courage and to drive transformation because they are out of touch with the people of this country and because they accepted and institutionalized corruption. They have to go because they are no longer Democrats."

All the details are here: https://secure.ngpvan.com/DAR1YEp-bkWTNtpHzgUd7A2

Michael Owens is a former Democratic chairman for Cobb County, which went blue under his leadership. He knows the party inside and out and he's taking on one of the last of the Georgia Blue Dogs, David Scott. He was very happy to have received an endorsement from Marianne. "Her willingness to suppprt progressive candidates," he said, "is a breath of fresh air, in what can often be the caustic environment of primary politics where challengers are running against establishment Democrats. The true strength in moving the progressive movement forward is through down ballot candidates."

Jan Perelman is the progressive Democrat running for the south Florida seat that Debbie Wasserman Schultz is sitting in-- opposing everything remotely progressive other than gay rights and abortion. When it comes to working families' interests, she's a baby step from being a Republican. "I'm always so amazed that I'm considered the 'left,'" Jen told us last night. "I have been a Democrat since I registered to vote in 1989. I am pro-labor, pro-environment, and anti-war, which are not radical positions. It was the Democratic Party that 'left' me when it was taken over by corporate interests and stopped representing working people. We cannot move forward as a country as long as entrenched corporate Democrats remain beholden to special interests. As a primary challenger who takes zero corporate money, I am going to do everything in my power to bring the Democratic party back to its roots as the party of the people."

Robin Wilt is also challenging an old school corrupt political hack, Joe Morelle, in Monroe County, New York. Robin was very enthusiastic about Marianne endorsing Shahid and told me that "not only proved that her run for the Presidency was not borne of vanity, but of integrity; but she has also demonstrated the type of political leadership and courage that the left wing of the party has long been lacking. As Democrats, as long as we remain complicit in supporting leadership within the party that does not advance an agenda that centers those most impacted by the deleterious policies that have produced the massive inequities that we witness today, we can no more say that we care about marginalized communities and the plight of the disenfranchised than can Republicans make that claim."

Continuing, Robin said that "It is disingenuous and craven to claim that you support universal health care, and then support leadership that blocks Medicare for All at every turn. It is disingenuous and craven to claim that you care about wealth and income inequality, and then support leadership that preserves a tax structure that benefits only the top 1% and accepts massive amounts of money from corporate interests. It is disingenuous and craven to claim that you care about climate justice, and then support leadership that thwarts implementation of the Green New Deal. It is disingenuous to claim that you care about housing justice and then support leadership that will not advance a Federal Homes Guarantee. In his Letter from a Birmingham Jail, Martin Luther King warned us about the well-meaning moderate that compromised his/her principles for the sake of pragmatism. King understood that whenever we compromise with a lie about who people are, and barter the human rights of the people we serve for our own comfort, we empower the political forces that have exploited our divisions to maintain power. The politicians who are blocking the expansion of healthcare to all Americans, abiding corporate polluters, increasing investment in the war and mass incarceration and detention economies, all while slashing our nation’s safety net and denying workers the right to earn a living wage are the selfsame politicians who are blocking a progressive agenda. Our silence is enabling their deceit. It is time that we follow Marianne Williamson’s courageous lead, give voice to the voiceless, and unabashedly support true progressives that adhere to the principles we hold dear."

Hector Oseguera, the New Jersey progressive running for a seat held by party hack Albio Sires, told us this morning that "It's an absolute honor to be part of Marianne Williamson's movement to bring the Democratic Party back to earth. This is a party that's supposed to represent the working-class people of this nation, but has gotten way too comfortable with their corporate sponsors. When you look at my race, you'll find that I'm the only Democratic candidate in this Democratic primary. The incumbent has an abysmal record on immigration, corporate welfare, and mass surveillance. Whether it's the environment, healthcare, or affordable housing, my opponent is to the far right of the average voter in my district, relying on a network of political cronies and corrupt big money interests to keep him in power. He's received dishonorable mentions in books like the Soprano State and the Jersey Sting, covering his history of corruption and ethics violations that have contributed to New Jersey's reputation as a politically corrupt state. This progressive movement, which owes a lot to Marianne's leadership, is working to dismantle the facade that corporate Democrats offer much substantive difference from their Republican colleagues."

In the Oklahoma City congressional district, Tom Guild is running against one of the most conservative Blue Dogs in the House, Kendra Horn. Tom noted yesterday that "Marianne Williamson is showing exemplary leadership in endorsing, raising money and fighting for progressive congressional candidates throughout America. My opponent opposes Medicare for All, the Green New Deal, raising the minimum wage to $15; she voted against labor’s major legislative initiative in Congress in 2020, voted against Sen. Tim Kaine’s and Ro Khanna's resolution to restrain Donald Trump from taking military actions that could start another endless war in Iran, and recently met remotely with lobbyists for Big Insurance Companies who were seeking money to bail out COBRA in the HEROES Act. That’s just a small sampling of her support for Republican-lite regressive policies. On the CARES Act she voted for the rule to let the bill proceed to the floor of the House to be debated and voted on, then she voted no on the bill. Go figure. Unless progressives oppose Nancy Pelosi’s DCCC gravy train and their support for Republican-lite members of the House running as Democrats, we essentially have two big corporate parties corrupted to the hilt by Wall Street and special interest campaign money. That may be one of the big untold stories as to why so many Americans choose to opt out and not vote every year. They see little structural and substantive difference between the two major parties on issues important to them. I thank Marianne for her support for our campaign and commend her for her integrity in grabbing the bull by the horns and supporting, Shahid, Pelosi’s primary challenger. Marianne has the guts of a government mule and that’s exactly what it will take for progressives to rule the roost. Progressives need to be tougher and stick out their necks to support fellow progressive candidates even when it’s hard to do and not convenient for them. I’m happy that I promoted Marianne to help her make the presidential debates and encouraged people on Facebook and Twitter to donate to her campaign. I was all in for Bernie, but saw that progressives needed all the help we could get in the primaries and in the debates. We need to GO BIG, GO BOLD, or GO HOME!"

Marianne Williamson Draws A Line In The Sand-- For Shahid Buttar And For David Kim

A few weeks ago Marianne Williamson wanted to discuss the congressional election in CA-34, a district that starts a few blocks from my house. I can walk there; before the new reality, I used to have dinner there a couple of times a week. And Konbi, my favorite sandwich shop-- also, according to Bon Appétit, the best sandwich shop in America-- is in the district. CA-34 includes Echo Park, Eagle Rock, Highland Park, Koreatown, Mount Washington, El Serano, Cypress Park, Boyle Heights, DTLA (the Arts District, the Financial District, the Fashion District), Dodger Stadium, City Terrace, Chinatown, Bunker Hill, Little Tokyo, Newton Park and Skid Row. It borders on Adam Schiff's district, Ted Lieu's district, Judy Chu's district, Karen Bass' district and Lucille Roybal-Allard's district. It's the heart of Los Angeles.

The district is 64% Hispanic, 20% Asian and 10% white. The $40,215 median income makes it one of the 20 poorest congressional districts in the country. It's one of the bluest districts in the country (D+35), gave Romney 14% of the vote and Trump 11%. It was the only district in Los Angeles to give Bernie a majority in the 2016 primary. The congressman representing CA-34 is Jimmy Gomez. Progressive Punch rates his voting record-- the 16th most progressive-- a solid "A." The only Californians voting further left are Mark DeSaulnier, Judy Chu and Ro Khanna. Gomez's #16 compares well to actual heroes of the revolution like AOC and Rashida Tlaib (tied at #18), Barbara Lee (#22) and Ilhan Omar (#37). But Marianne wasn't calling me to discuss endorsing Gomez's reelection campaign. She knows the meaninglessness of these kinds of ratings and wanted to know what I thought of David Kim, Gomez's opponent.

David's a 36 year old anti-corruption attorney whose campaign motto is "Financial Freedom, Love & Justice for All" The jungle primary was March 3 and the two who emerged to face off in November were Gomez with 49.5% of the vote (just under 50) and David Kim with 23.2% of the vote. Turnout was abysmal-- 34,034 voters in total. After the vote, the other 3 candidates (including the Republican) all endorsed David Kim. This video will give you a good idea about what his campaign is all about and why he has been gaining momentum:





I asked him how he's going to persuade voters to replace Gomez and he told me that Gomez isn't "a true progressive and does the bare minimum, only chiming in to support certain legislation once Nancy Pelosi does so first. He is scared to lead in legislation and just follows. If he were a true progressive, he should be supporting Ilhan Omar's HR 6515 and not HR 6314 in place of that. Moreover, Jimmy doesnt have a pulse with the suffering of our people here in L.A. I have nothing personal against him but when career politicians have been in office too long, they're unable to connect with the suffering of the people no matter how hard they try because they've been in their political cash bubbles for so long... [W]e need a federal representative who will fight and lead for us, not do everything Nancy says. We have corrupt local politician/developer relationships/money rampant in L.A. and our federal representative hasn't stepped in because they're all part of the same pack, with the same campaign donors... 98.8% of Jimmy's campaign contributions are from PACs, corporate PACs, banks, developers, military industrial complex/defense, etc.. And our people in L.A. don't like that kind of energy feeding our federal representative. We want to move away from a Jimmy Gomez [towards someone more like] Ro Khanna. We need someone to take a firm stance on clean campaign finance reform, while addressing homelessness, housing and these systemic issues that haven't been addressed for years... Nothing personal against Jimmy. But people are suffering and we don't want to waste another 2 years by electing someone who just follows."

Marianne endorsed him. That was a big step towards a kind of political clarity that differentiates between real leadership and... well, however you want to describe professional politicians who try to be on the right side of their districts' prevailing sentiments.

Marianne was just getting started though. She asked me about the grassroots progressive taking on Nancy Pelosi, Shahid Buttar, which began a process that led to the video up top. As she noted, she's "a lifelong Democrat who has become has become very very concerned with the corporatist direction of the party in too many cases." Her own experience in running for president this year showed her, she said, "how the control of certain forces, at the expense of progressive voices, is a direction that is taking the Democratic Party away from the principles" that she was-- like many of us-- raised to believe the party stands for. The Heroes Act Pelosi pushed through Congress on Friday snapped something in Marianne. She is insisting that there should be $2,000 a month for everyone until the pandemic is under control, as well as Medicare for All... "We need a show of compassion for the American people that is simply not the agenda these days for the corporate-backed Democratic Party."

"Progressives," she said, "can't just be sidelined all the time... or pandered to, suppressed. It's got to stop. Let's stop it now. ShahidButtar.com." Please take a look at the candidates Marianne has already endorsed by clicking on the thermometer on the right. And don't be surprised if she gets behind others taking on the Ancien Régime beyond just Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, Mitch McConnell, Carolyn Maloney, Gregory Meeks, Albio Sires and Susan Collins. I wouldn't be surprised if, for example, Debbie Wasserman Schultz doesn't find herself with a Marianne Williamson problem down in Broward and Miami-Dade counties in the not too distant future. Meanwhile, please take a look at the candidates, like David Kim, Shahid Buttar, Mckayla Wilkes, Andrew Romanoff and Betsy Sweet, who Marianne has already endorsed. And please contribute what you can to their campaigns at the page the thermometer will take you to.