A.L.O.H.A. Homes-- Guest Post By State Senator Stanley Chang (D-HI)

Stanley Chang is a progressive Democrat representing the 9th District in the Hawaii State Senate, which-- until he won his election, was the last Republican Senate district in Hawaii. Recently, he was named Chair of the Committee on Housing, which is tasked with finding solutions to Hawaii’s chronic housing shortage.

A recent poll from the University of Hawaii Public Policy Center lists housing as the number one issue for voters in the State of Hawaii. If you are from Hawaii, this wouldn’t surprise you. At least as long as I’ve been alive, the headlines and news coverage have lamented our island community’s lack of housing and the growing need for affordable units.

There are many reasons for the housing shortage. But they are not primarily technological, economic, or even legal. They are political. In the private sector, the mantra goes, “The customer is always right.” In government, the voter is always right. The political stalemate that exists today is because all of the existing proposals have gone against the interest of some important group of voters. I hear three main reasons why voters in Hawaii oppose new housing supply.

• “You’re blocking my view.”
• If the proposed project is near you and will potentially block your view, there is a high likelihood that you’ll never support it. Fortunately, even the most ambitious project would only block the views of a small fraction of the state.

• “No more growth.”
• Many Hawaii residents don’t want large amounts of new housing stock. In fact, they want the housing stock to go down, because they believe that Hawaii is already too crowded with too much traffic, too many tourists, and too many tall buildings. They believe Hawaii has already reached its “carrying capacity.” I wouldn’t be surprised if this were a majority of Hawaii voters, but I still think it’s a minority. When I ask them if they believe their children and grandchildren should be able to live here, they still say yes, and that implies acceptance of some level of population growth.

• “Wealthy investors from overseas.”
• The largest group-- and I believe a majority-- of Hawaii voters fear that any new homes will be snapped up by wealthy investors from overseas before local people are able to buy. Often, these investors will convert these units into vacation rentals, removing from the housing supply a unit that could otherwise house a local family. To address this concern, my housing plan is designed to ensure that newly built homes will be available only to local people.

Often in Hawaii, we look to mainland jurisdictions like California for ideas and precedents. The only problem is, places like Southern California and the Bay Area have even greater housing shortages than we do. Luckily, there are other places that have solved housing crises and today provide an abundance of affordable, high quality housing. By taking inspiration from successful existing models, we can craft a housing solution that will both 1) move the needle and 2) be politically realistic.

Two of the major success stories in affordable housing today are Vienna, Austria and Singapore. In Vienna, 62 percent of the population lives in public housing. In Singapore, 82 percent of the population lives in public housing. Interestingly, these two models are opposite in their approach. In Vienna, as in much of Europe and the United States, the public housing system is a high tax, high subsidy, rentership system. Singapore has a low tax, low-to-no subsidy, ownership model. Both are extremely successful and popular among their respective populations. A key element to the popularity of both systems is that they are available to a large majority of the population. In Hawaii, I believe Singapore’s unsubsidized, ownership for all model would be the most politically viable.

Let’s take a look at how it works in Singapore.

Central Provident Fund

It starts with the Central Provident Fund. Singapore requires all working citizens to save 37 percent of their pay (23 percent for housing, 8 percent for healthcare, 6 percent for retirement) into the Central Provident Fund (CPF). It’s a bit like our Medicare and Social Security, which are mandatory savings programs. The difference is, Medicare and Social Security go into a black hole and come back out of the black hole. In Singapore, the CPF is your money. You keep track of how much is in your own accounts, you have some flexibility in how to invest it, and you have flexibility in how to spend it.

Qualification

You’ve been working and saving into your CPF accounts. Once you pass certain milestones, you become eligible to buy public housing.

• Married and over 21 years old OR Single and over 35 years old
• Own no other real property
• Must be an owner-occupant
• Must be a Singapore Citizen or Permanent Resident

Housing Development Board

In the meantime, the Housing and Development Board (HDB), Singapore’s public housing agency, has been building a ton of new housing. A ton. During the 1980s, at its height, HDB built 322,000 apartment units in 10 years, or over 10,000 units per year. Currently, they build about 20,000 units a year, which is actually more supply than they have demand for. By contrast, Hawaii’s housing demand is about 5,000 units per year, and we only build about 2,000-3,000 units per year, so our shortage grows by 2,000 every year.

A 969 square foot, 3 bedroom, 2 bathroom unit, new construction, in Singapore will run about US$180,000. On top of that, the down payment is only 5 percent, not 20 percent, so you move in with $9,000. Most Singaporeans already have that much saved in their CPF account, and for over 90 percent of Singaporeans, the monthly mortgage payment is less than the mandatory 23 percent CPF housing savings. For most people, there’s nothing “out of pocket” to buy a home. That is how Singapore has been able to achieve 90 percent home ownership. In contrast, the US home ownership rate is 63 percent, and in Hawaii, the lowest state, it is only 57 percent.

A.L.O.H.A. Homes

In the coming legislative session, I will propose a bill to create a new public housing system that adopts many of the best practices from the Singapore and Vienna. The system will be called ALOHA, an acronym standing for Affordable, Locally Owned Homes for All.

Under the ALOHA plan, a state agency will redevelop existing state lands near stations of the forthcoming Honolulu rail line with very high density housing. For example, McKinley High School can be redeveloped with 20 towers and 10,000 housing units. These homes will be distributed under the ALOHA system:

• Affordable
• These homes will be affordable with a target cost of $300,000 for a 3 bedroom unit. Existing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac programs allow a down payment of only 3 percent for those making 100 percent of the area median income (AMI) or less, so residents can move in with just $9,000. Under current HUD guidelines, such a unit would be affordable to those at the 50-60 percent of AMI, or about $64,000 for a family of four. While that’s still a lot of money, we’re now within reach of school teachers, bartenders, or bus drivers--the middle class.

• Locally
• These units will only be available for Hawaii residents who will be owner-occupants and own no other real property at the time they buy them. These three conditions alone should eliminate all of the overseas investors. It’s true that one can become a Hawaii resident the moment you step off the plane. But given the planning and permitting process, even if the bill were to pass tomorrow, and people signed up for the waitlist tomorrow, it would probably take at least 5 years for the first units to open to the first buyers. That’s a de facto durational residency requirement. If someone moves here and lives here at least five years and disposes all their real property, I’d say that person is now a part of our community.

• Owned
• ALOHA homes will be for sale, not for rent. Buyers will receive a 99 year lease on the unit, which means they will not have to worry about having to move before the end of their natural lives. Like any other property interest, the lease can be passed down to one’s heirs. Although the property will revert to the state after 99 years, buyers will still be able to build their net worth. The biggest source of wealth-building in home ownership is not the price appreciation of the property-- which increases in value more slowly than the stock market--but the freedom from paying an ever-increasing amount of rent. And after 30 years, no more rent will be due, which means that one can spend or save a much larger proportion of one’s paycheck.

• Homes
• ALOHA homes will be true homes, not just empty boxes in the sky, or tiny homes, or warehouses for people. They will be large enough to raise a family, with two or more bedrooms. They will have a number of amenities, such as swimming pools, playgrounds, state of the art vertical schools, tennis courts, community gardens, and music practice rooms. A luxury developer might provide one pool for every 200 units. ALOHA homes would have one pool for every 2,000 units, for example, which brings the cost way down per unit. But with so many units using each of these amenities, there will be much more social integration through communal interaction. In addition, by using design competitions instead of awarding the designs to the lowest bidder, there will be a much more direct incentive by the planners and architects to compete on the basis of providing the best amenities for the same cost.

• All
• Last but not least, these homes will be for ALL. Remember the qualifications: Hawaii resident, owner-occupant, owns no other real property. That’s it. There will be no other requirements, such as a first-time home buyer requirement, or an income caps. Now, some people say our current public housing system is too socialist. Actually, that’s exactly the wrong perspective. In the US, public housing comprises only a low single digit percentage of the overall housing stock. Whatever the definition of socialism may be, giving benefits to three percent of the population is not socialism, it’s the opposite of socialism. Socialism is for all. Look at the three biggest pieces of the federal budget: Medicare, Social Security, and defense. What do they have in common? They’re for everybody, no means testing, no income caps. Even Donald Trump is eligible for Medicare and Social Security, and of course everyone is protected by our armed forces. That’s why these programs are wildly popular, and even Donald Trump has pledged never to cut Medicare, Social Security, and defense. If health care, retirement, and defense should be available to all, why not the basic need of housing?

I am hopeful that we’ve devised a plan that helps all the stakeholders in housing issues: environmentalists, neighboring residents, real estate developers, realtors, construction unions, and most importantly, the grassroots voters of Hawaii. It’s a narrow political path to satisfy all these groups while at the same time moving the needle on the housing shortage, but the ALOHA proposal is the only plan currently being discussed to do both those things.

Actually, the problems of growth are good problems to have. Problems of decline are much, much worse. In 1992, Japan had about 2.1 million 18 year olds. Today, Japan has only about 1.1 million. Japan and other countries must deal with the reality that their civilizations could simply cease to exist over time. They are facing a huge shortage of people even to care for their elderly.

In America, we assume population growth, which is fairly unusual in the developed world. What most people don’t know is that Hawaii has lost population for not one, but two straight years now. Every single day, 37 more people move away than move here. I believe the primary reason is the high cost of housing. I refuse to stand by idly as Hawaii dwindles to the very rich and the people who serve them. But without a dramatic change to our housing policy, that’s the legacy we’ll leave to our future generations. I was not elected to do nothing, but to at least address the biggest problems in our society, and the ALOHA homes plan is one way to do just that.

Join me in my fight to solve the housing crisis in Hawaii. Contact me directly at senchang@capitol.hawaii.gov or 808-586-8420. If you’re interested in learning more, you can watch my full presentation on YouTube here:



To access the presentations and materials from our housing conference, “How to Achieve 65,000 Housing Units by 2025,” or to express interest in our upcoming Singapore-Hong Kong delegation May 21-30, 2019, scan the below QR code or visit https://bit.ly/2zS7HAn.

Trouble In Paradise-- Another Republican Pretending To Be A "Democrat" Is Running For Congress

Another fake Democratic careerist running for Congress

Hawaii's first congressional district (Honolulu) is almost as blue as the second district. The PVI of the 2nd district is D+19 and the 1st district's is "only" D+17. Trump got 29.6% of the vote in HI-02 but actually climbed over 30% in HI-01-- 30.5%. Hawaiians didn't buy the bullshit and Hawaii is not Trump territory. In fact, Republicans there have been fleeing his toxic party. The problem, though, is when they leave the GOP and migrate over to the Democrats, it isn't because they have seen the light in terms of Democratic values; it's because they hate Trump. And they bring their conservatism with them. And that's especially problematic when the Republicans are ambitious politicians. Let's take the congressional race for the open seat in HI-01.

There are already two very conservative Democrats in the race, two anti-LGBQT whackos with awful records, Donna Mercado Kim and Doug Chin. They're both perfect exemplars of politicians from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. And, of course, they are darlings of the monied establishment. Could it get any worse? Sure-- one of these actual Republicans fleeing Trump is jumping into the race this week.

Beth Fukumoto is an attractive, well-spoken young woman (34 years old). She was elected to the state House in 2012, representing red-leaning Mililani, Mililani Mauka, and Waipio Acres, and quickly clawed her way to the top of the heap, becoming House Minority Leader. In 2017 House Republicans fired her after she made some anti-Trump remarks at the Honolulu Woman's March. Should Democrats be happy she switched parties? Well, sure-- except now Democrats have another anti-Choice, pro-NRA, anti-gay, pro-Big Business politician muddying up the party brand. Remember, she not so long ago she was also the chair of Hawaii's Republican Party. So that makes 3 conservatives running as Democrats for the HI-01 open seat. That's the seat one of the most cutting edge progressives anywhere in America, Kaniela Ing, is also contesting the seat.

An old buddy of mine, Stanley Chang is the progressive Democrat who recently banished the last Republican from the state Senate. He reminded me a while back that although a lot is made about Hawaii being a functional one-party state, the party is very much split between progressives and garden variety corporate Dems. There's little question about which side of that divide Fukumoto comes in on. She's been anti-choice, anti-LBGTQ, anti-gun control, and has stood firmly against virtually the entire Democratic Party platform throughout her entire career. The Democratic leadership was, predictably, excited by her switch but in a one-party dominate state, it's fair to ask whether she made this move for political expediency with higher office in mind, using Trump's insidious yet convenient comments to manipulate the public. A Hawaiian friend based in DC told me that morning that in his opinion "the Democratic Party has opened its tent far too wide, to the point where its founding values no longer matter. We accept more party members from the right than the left. People wonder why the bluest legislature in the nation struggles to pass progressive legislation? This is why." Please consider contributing to Kaniela Ing's campaign by tapping on the ActBlue congressional thermometer above.

Want To Know Why Hawaii Has Such A Weak And Ineffective GOP?

A couple of weeks ago I heard a 33 year old Hawaiian state legislator, Beth Fukumoto, being interviewed on NPR. She had a compelling story about criticizing Trump and being stripped of her leadership position in the state House by her fellow Republicans. I thought it might make an interesting story for this blog and then stopped myself with a promise that I would revisit when Beth, a former state party GOP chair and the Minority Leader of the state House, inevitably switched parties and became a Democrat. That happened yesterday, when she made the video up top.

Since 2012 she's been representing one of the few Republican areas of Hawaii-- district 36 (the Mililani Mauka area of Honolulu. (There are no Republicans in the state Senate and only 6-- soon to be 5-- in the state House, out of 51 members.) The GOP, statewide and nationally, never lost an opportunity to tout her as their new friendly face-- like in this post in Newsweek, Nine Women Remaking the Right. The House Republicans ousted her as Minority Leader when she spoke at the Women's March on Jan. 21 and referred to Señor Trumpanzee as a bully.

Wednesday, in a resignation letter to Republicans she wrote a devastating analysis of what the Hawaii GOP is and why it fails so badly.

Since becoming a member eight years ago, I’ve suggested our local party should reflect our uniquely diverse community. And I believed that if I was committed to this cause, I could help attract more people to the party. But, a little more than a year ago, a fellow caucus member told me “We are the party of middle America. I don’t care if the demographics don’t fit.” He declared that Republicans are the national majority and that it is our responsibility to represent “middle American” values here in Hawaii.

It was in that moment that I was finally able to identify the colonial mindset I’d unknowingly run up against for years. No ethnic group in our state is a majority, and more than 70 percent of the population isn't white. But our Hawaii Republican Party leaders wanted us to adopt “middle American” values instead of holding on to Republican principles that also reflect our own local values, such as responsible stewardship over things like wealth and power.

This election, I saw members of my party marginalizing and condemning minorities, ethnic or otherwise, and making demeaning comments towards women. So, when I listened as our now top office holder refused to condemn the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, speaking out didn't seem like a choice.

A little over a year ago, I was in Washington, D.C. with a group of Republican friends talking about my concerns with Donald Trump’s candidacy and, more specifically, his suggestion about a Muslim registry. They told me it was just rhetoric. I reminded them that a registry was only one step away from internment camps. Less than an hour later, we saw the breaking news headline, “Trump says he may have supported Japanese Internment.” As a woman and the only Japanese-American in our (then) seven-member caucus, I had something valuable to add about why our party continues to lose.

My Japanese-American grandparents owned a small grocery store in Hawaii during World War II with a small house attached to the back where my father's family all lived in cramped space. When word spread through the community that the government was placing Japanese-Americans in internment camps, my grandpa destroyed everything written in Japanese, smashed my family's beautiful Japanese dolls, and buried everything else that would make them look “less American” in the backyard.

Despite his devastatingly heroic actions, they took my grandpa anyway. He was fortunate enough to be detained for only a few hours, however, thousands of families across the United States weren’t so lucky.

Every immigrant group has a story of hardship and suffering. Every woman has a story about sexism or inequality. Most people’s stories are worse than mine. I’ve had a lot of opportunities in life, and I truly believed that the Republican Party was a group that believed in creating more opportunities for everyone.

President Trump’s meteoric success and his unabashed prejudices should have forced our party to address the elements of racism and sexism within the base. But for years, the party allowed it, fearing Democrats, primaries and third-party challenges. With electoral successes across the nation, concerns about disenfranchising minority voters are being buried. The party has ended conversations about how Republican rhetoric and actions threaten any ability to win amongst an increasingly diverse electorate.

So, I continued to speak out. The day after the inauguration, I spoke at the Hawaii’s Women’s March. I said we should all agree that the campaign remarks made by our president about women and minorities were unacceptable, and that it was our responsibility, regardless of who we voted for, to show our kids that everyone should be treated with respect.

A call for kindness and respect should have been a non-partisan message, but it was controversial within the party. Within 24 hours, calls for my resignation or censure abounded. My caucus told me that they would remove me from leadership unless I promised to not criticize the president for the remainder of his term. That was a promise I simply could not make.

Since I became a Republican eight years ago, I’ve served the party at every level from envelope stuffer to party chair. And, I’ve served our Republican legislators as a file clerk, an office manager, a research director and eventually, the Minority Leader. I dedicated myself to making the Republican party a viable, relevant party in Hawaii. But, what I've experienced over the last eight years is that the GOP doesn't want to change.

The leaders that remain in the party either condone the problems I’ve identified or they agree with me but are unwilling to stand up and fight. For those reasons, I am resigning from the Republican party.

If I chose to stay, I would simply become an obstructionist in a political party that doesn't want to hear my voice or my message. I don't believe that I can make a difference in the Hawaii Republican Party, but I still believe there's hope for other Republicans in other states.

I want to see all Americans fight for diversity of opinion, moderation, minorities, women, and ultimately, a better party system. Without confronting this problem, Republicans across the country will inevitably discover what it’s like to be a super minority, or a Republican in Hawaii. No matter how many walls are built and travel bans enacted, America's demographics will keep changing, and the Republican party can't keep marginalizing voices like mine and the people that care about what I'm saying.

Last month, the Civil Beat editorial board used Fukumoto's problems with the party to explain why the Hawaii GOP is destined to be irrelevant. "The Hawaii Republican Party," they cautioned, "must recognize that it is not the Oklahoma Republican Party, where Trump’s rhetoric and policies are more in tune with the constituents. In Hawaii, a moderate Republican like Fukumoto stands a much better chance of success than a Trump Republican, both with voters and with bipartisan initiatives. Trump is no ordinary Republican. He is deeply divisive within his own party, even among the most staunchly conservative members... In a Civil Beat video Fukumoto says that she’s received thousands of phone calls, emails and postcards from Republicans and Democrats all over the country praising her for speaking out against Trump and her insistence that the Republican party is better than him... But the Hawaii GOP insists on standing with its national leadership, not with moderates like Fukumoto, even as Hawaii wholeheartedly rejected him... [B]y refusing to build a coalition that is in tune with the electorate, the Hawaii GOP will remain nothing more than an afterthought in state politics-- a joke that no one, least of all the state’s Democrats, need take seriously." Last year Hawaii voters gave Bernie a 69.8% win over Hillary and, in the general election, gave Hillary a massive 251,853 (62.3%) to 121,648 (30.1%) win over Trump. They know what's up.

Our old friend Stanley Chang is the progressive Democrat who recently banished the last Republican from the state Senate. He reminded me today that although a lot is made about Hawaii being a functional one-party state, the party is very much split between progressives and garden variety corporate Dems. He seemed happy enough, though, to welcome another non-progressive into the party. "I welcome Rep. Fukumoto's wish to join the Democratic Party, just as countless other Republicans have stood up against Trump. It would have been easier to go along to get along, but I am humbled by her courage in speaking out and now, putting her country above her party. The support of allies like Rep. Fukumoto is the reason why Democrats will succeed in 2018 and beyond."

That all said, don't get overly excited by Ms. Fukumoto's story. After all, she has been anti-choice, anti-LBGT, anti-gun control, and has stood firmly against virtually the entire Democratic Party platform throughout her entire career. The Democratic leadership are, predictably, excited by her switch but in a one-party dominate state, it's fair to ask whether she made this move for political expediency with to higher office in mind, using Trump's insidious yet convenient comments to manipulate the public. A Hawaiian friend based in DC told me that morning that in his opinion "the Democratic Party has opened its tent far too wide, to the point where its founding values no longer matter. We accept more party members from the right than the left. People wonder why the bluest legislature in the nation struggles to pass progressive legislation? This is why."

Looking For Candidate Advice-- From The U.S. Senate To State Legislatures

Blue America spends most of its time and energy on House races. As far as the 2016 Senate races go, after Donna Edwards (MD), PG Sittenfeld (OH) and Alan Grayson (FL) were defeated in their primaries by establishment candidates the only Senate endorsements we have left are for Russ Feingold (WI), who looks like he'll probably win a week from tomorrow, and two long-shots who beat their more conservative opponents, Ray Metcalfe (AK) and Misty Kathrine Snow (UT). Still, people are always asking who's worth supporting and who isn't. For anyone interested in my opinion, I have a list below of the 34 states that have Senate races being decided next Tuesday and what I would do in each one. Obviously, there is not a single Republican worthy of voting for, even Republicans running against the worst Schumercrats that the Democrats have put up.

I've rated the candidates from 1-4. A 1 means, they're good enough to contribute money to and badger your friends into voting for. A 2 means they're good enough to vote for. A 3 means bring along a clothespin and vote for the crap candidate. A 4 means don't vote at all in that race because the candidate is so bad that it would be better to see Schemer choke on their loss than see them win a Senate seat where they would be in position to do grievous harm for years if not decades.

• Alabama- Ron Crumpton 2
• Alaska- Ray Metcalfe 1
• Arizona- 4
• Arkansas- Conner Eldridge 3
• California- Kamala Harris 2 or 3
• Colorado- Michael Bennet 3
• Connecticut- Richard Blumenthal 2
• Florida- 4
• Georgia- Jim Barksdale 3
• Hawaii- Brain Schatz 2
• Idaho- Jerry Sturgill 2 or 3
• Illinois- Tammy Duckworth 2 or 3
• Indiana- 4
• Iowa- 4
• Kansas- Patrick Wiesner 2 or 3
• Kentucky- Jim Gray 2
• Louisiana- Foster Campbell 2 or 3
• Maryland- Chris Van Hollen 2
• Missouri- Jason Kander 3
• Nevada- Catherine Cortez Masto 2 or 3
• New Hampshire- Maggie Hassan 3
• New York- 4
• North Carolina- Deborah Ross 2
• North Dakota- Eliot Glasheim 2 or 3
• Ohio- Strickland 3
• Oklahoma- Mike Workman 2 or 3
• Oregon- Ron Wyden 3 (although Gaius, who lives there, says 4)
• Pennsylvania- Katie McGinty- 3
• South Carolina- Thomas Dixon 2 or 3
• South Dakota- Jay Williams 2 or 3
• Utah- Misty Snow 1
• Vermont Patrick Leahy 2
• Washington- Patty Murray 2
• Wisconsin- Russ Feingold 1

On the other end of the power spectrum are the folks running for state legislative seats, another area that Blue America hasn't gotten as involved with as we wish we could. But we have endorsed several of the best candidates who we've gotten to know. There are literally hundreds running. You can see all the ones we endorsed by tapping on the thermometer on the right. Below are a couple of random bits and pieces about the campaigns that have kept in touch. Let's start with our old friend and comrade Darcy Burner up in Washington state. Her race is a twofer-- getting an incredible progressive woman, a born leader, into the legislature and making sure the Democrats maintain their precariously narrow hold on the state House. Darcy is ahead by a fraction but the GOP is throwing a lot of money against her.

Thanks to Trump, Washington state Republicans are on the defensive down-ballot. The polling average has Hilalry up by 13.5 points-- 48.8% to 35.3%-- and the most recent poll, by Elway, just over a week ago, shows Democrats up and down the ticket picking up momentum. Hillary is up over Trump 48-31%, as he continues hemorrhaging support. Democratic Governor Jay Inslee in beating GOP challenger Bill Bryant 51-39%. Democratic Senator Patty Murray is beating GOP challenger Chris Vance 58-34%. Democrats are leading in most of the statewide races-- Lt. Governor, Auditor, Lands Commissioner, Insurance Commissioner, Treasurer and Superindant of Public Instruction. The Republican is leading, narrowly, in the Secretary of State race. Likely to help Democrats next week is the big lead-- 58 to 31%-- for increasing the minimum wage, gradually, to $13.50/hour by 2020.

“I think we have a lot of seats in play,” said Rep. Joe Fitzgibbon of the House Democratic Campaign Committee.

“Our plan all along has been to run as if we were behind, and as if we had a chance to lose the majority of the House. I don't think we're going to lose the majority of the house,” he continued.

Instead, Fitzgibbon believes his Party is in a position to grow its majority, in large part because of Donald Trump.

House Republicans, meanwhile, downplay concerns about a possible Trump effect down ballot, arguing voters will identify local candidates with local issues, not the national presidential race.

“I’m still pretty optimistic,” said Rep. Drew Stokesbary of the House Republican Organizational Committee.

“I know that Trump isn’t the most popular person in Washington State or the United States right now, but the fact of the matter is that Hillary Clinton is the most unpopular major party nominee in history among anybody not named Donald Trump, so there’s really an effect on both sides of the ticket,” Stokesbary argued.

But recent polling shows Clinton with a double-digit lead in Washington State, and Democrats believe that will give them the edge.

“A lot of voters who have traditionally considered themselves to be Republican voters feel more alienated from that party right now because of the kind of rhetoric they’re hearing at the state and national level,” Fitzgibbon told KING 5.

“I feel like there’s a realistic shot we’ll be at 52 (seats),” Fitzgibbon predicted.

Stokesbary believes Republicans could take the House 51 to 47.

So, here’s a look at some the most competitive races that both Parties are targeting:

...District 5 , East King County, Carnation, North Bend, Snoqualmie, Issaquah, parts of Renton.

House Position 2—An open seat vacated by Republican Rep. Chad Magandanz who is running for state Senate. Republican Paul Graves led Democrat Darcy Burner in the August primary.

Money raised: Graves, $249,698.20; Burner, $186,240.66

Independent spending: $14,140.91 in support of Graves, none in opposition, as of Thursday.

$1,131.96 in support of Burner, $45,938.91 in opposition.

Helping Darcy close that gap this week is urgent. Please contribute if you can. Another progressive woman, like Darcy, who we first met when she was running for Congress is our old friend Eloise Reyes, in San Bernardino County. She's running against a corrupt Democratic hack, Cheryl Brown, for a state Assembly seat. Brown is being heavily financed by Big Oil, which is running a massive SuperPAC independent expenditure campaign-- over $8 million-- against Eloise. Bernie has stepped in and has been helping Eloise raise money to combat the flood of oil money. This is the most expensive state legislative race anywhere in the country. And Eloise is running against a bribe-happy buffoon who abused her expense account more than any legislator in Sacramento and who solicits personal gifts from lobbyists and others with a legislative agenda. She's infamous for a gold watch she sports that was given to her by Russia when she was on a junket there.

Last week, the L.A. Times reported that the League of Conservation Voters named Brown to a list of what it calls the "most anti-environment" state candidates nationwide. The group's 'Dirty Dozen in the states' list, maintained by state chapters of the League of Conservation Voters, was first compiled in 2010."

Brown is the first Californian to be named to the state-level list, which is modeled after a "Dirty Dozen" list of federal candidates that the national organization has kept for 20 years.

Brown's environmental record in the Legislature has become a central issue in her pitched battle against fellow Democrat Eloise Reyes, who has received endorsements from the California League of Conservation Voters, the Sierra Club and other environmental groups.

Reyes has criticized Brown for helping block a major provision in Gov. Jerry Brown's climate change bill last year, and for the $1.1 million Chevron has contributed to an independent expenditure committee supporting the incumbent. Overall, oil companies have contributed more than $8 million to various committees supporting Brown as well as other candidates this cycle.

Local environmental groups were up in arms earlier this year when Brown supporters sent out mailers calling the assemblywoman an "environmental champion," and some have dubbed her "Chevron Cheryl."

“The Inland Empire has some of the dirtiest air in the country. Yet time and again Cheryl Brown has sided with Chevron and Big Oil, who fuel her campaign, rather than act to protect the health of her constituents,” said CLCV Political Director James Johnson in a statement Tuesday.

This, in short, is LCV's case against Cheryl Brown:

• Chevron is spending a mind-blowing $1 million to help re-elect Cheryl Brown, earning her the moniker “Chevron Cheryl.”
• In addition, Cheryl Brown has accepted huge direct campaign contributions from Big Oil including BP, ExxonMobil, Occidental Petroleum, Tesero, and Valero.
• Brown voted against a bill that would have prevented oil companies from cheating customers by manipulating the price of a gallon of gas.
• Brown not only opposed expanding California’s landmark climate and clean energy law, but she tried to help Big Oil dodge complying with the law.
• Brown is key player in the “Oil Caucus,” a group of oil-funded Democrats who work against reducing California’s dependence on oil.
• Brown voted for MORE fracking and FEWER regulations on fracking.

Last race-- a third progressive we first met in a congressional campaign-- is Stanley Chang in Hawaii. There's is an especially interesting race because of the potentially historic ramifications. In 1980 the state Senate in Alabama was 100% Democratic. Same in Louisiana-- all Democrats, no Republicans. Today, only 8 of the 35 Alabama state senators are Democrats. And Louisiana has 14 Democrats in it's 39 seat state Senate. Hawaii has 25 state senators-- 24 Democrats and one Republican, Sam Slom. (The state House has 51 members and 7 of them are Republicans.) Our old friend, Stanley, is taking on Slom, who's been the state senator for 20 years. Obama beat Romney with about 66% but the district is wealthy and other Republicans have been elected there. But it's very tough because many people think it's unique to have the only Republican in the state Senate and people feel sorry for the 74 year old Slom, who's been in the seat for 20 years and who is sick and has been rushed to the hospital from the Senate floor several times.

But Trump is playing a role even in this race. His presence on the top of the ticket is so revolting to many Republicans that they've decided to just stay home, although Stanley says he's counting on his record to win, not on Trump's toxicity. Slom is a friendly guy but a big NRA supporter and a total economic reactionary. Stanley describes himself as an Elizabeth Warren Democrat-- and that's how we remember him as well.

Stanley Chang with Alan Grayson

Oh... and speaking of Alan Grayson... yesterday he asked his supporters to lend a hand to Russ Feingold's campaign. Like many of his, he was offended by loathesome right-wing billionaire, Diane Hendricks, shoving $5 million into negative TV commercials to poison Wisconsin voters' minds against Russ Feingold. "Feingold is winning," he wrote. "But some faceless whatsis billionaire has calculated that Ron Johnson might deliver a personal tax cut to her, so she has put her money where her math is.

If Feingold wins, then you can at least make the case that America is a democracy. (“Demos” = people. “Cracy” = form of government. “Crazy” = this year’s election.) Thanks to you and people like you, I was first among Senate candidates this year in percentage of money from small donors. Feingold was second.

But if Ron Johnson wins, then the only debate left is whether America is a plutocracy or an oligarchy. Kind of like Diet Coke vs. Coke Zero. One billionaire swings a Senate election with ten days to go by peeling off 0.1% of her net worth? Fuhgeddaboudit. Democracy R.I.P.

Please contribute $15, $40, $75 or whatever you can give in order to help Russ Feingold win, and help perpetuate government of the people, by the people and for the people.

On the day that the Citizens United decision was rendered, I appeared on MSNBC, and I said “if we do nothing, you can kiss this country goodbye.” This really is one of those crucial moments.

Racist Fanatic William Colmer Has A Minority Majority School In Pascagoula Named After Him-- Plus Hawaii Update

The William M. Colmer Middle School is in Pascagoula, Mississippi. 46% of the students are African-Americans and 15% are Hispanic. 79% of the students are eligible for a free or reduced-price lunch program, somewhat higher than the average for Mississippi (71%). The school is named for Representative William M. Colmer who died on September 9, 1980 (age 90) and is buried at Machpelah Cemetery right their in Pascagoula. The students can walk over to the cemetery and visit their school's namesake. Perhaps they should read a little about the 20-terms congressman from Mississippi's Gulf Coast first though.

Colmer won a primary against Robert Hall in 1932, and that turned out to be a very good year for Democrats. Congressional Republicans lost 101 seats in the House that year. Colmer was elected with 94.5% of the vote-- the lowest percentage of any of Mississippi's 7 Members of Congress. He was swept into office as a New Deal Democrat but soon figured out that the New Deal not only helped whites, which he was fine with, but helped blacks… which he was very much not fine with. As time went by, he turned increasingly more reactionary and made opposing racial equality his life's work.

By all accounts he was a disgusting political figure and in no ways-- except the for "D" next to his name-- a Democrat. He was a blight on the party brand, just the way Blue Dogs, New Dems and corporate shills like Israel, Emanuel, Wasserman Schultz, Crowley and Hoyer are today. Even though Colmer endorsed Nixon against JFK, Humphrey and McGovern and endorsed Goldwater against LBJ, the idiot House Democrats allowed him to retain the Rules Committee chairmanship, putting him in a position to slow down desegregation for years. When he finally retired in 1972, his administrative assistant, Trent Lott-- another pile of racist dogcrap-- ran for his House seat and won… as a Republican-- the first elected there since 1873.

I didn't share this Colmer info with you just as another random example of the Republican wing of the Democratic Party, although he was obviously that. I shared it because Karoli seemed so worked up Saturday about a Democratic judicial candidate in Connecticut, Anna Zubkova, whose husband, Rob Freeman, is a very public racist. "If whites had a voice in the government," he wrote, "there might not have been an Iraq war. There might not have been all these horrible trade agreements that are impoverishing everyone. We might have more fuel efficient cars, or more mass transit. Who knows what might have been?" I guess Debbie Wasserman Schultz would call it being part of her twisted conception of a "big tent party."


DREADFUL RESULTS IN HAWAII LAST NIGHT

Voter participation through absentee ballots was high, up over 12% since 2012. But that was the only good news there was yesterday. And although none of the candidates are as bad as William Colmer, it was a good night for the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. As expected, progressive Governor Neil Abercrombie was defeated by centrist David Ige in a huge landslide, 143,835 (67%) to 67,368 (32%). Ige will face Republican Duke Aiona and extreme right-wing ex-Democrat (now Independent) Mufi Hannemann in November. It will be a tough race for him.

With all 113 precincts counted in the first congressional district, the race to replace Hanabusa was won by Mark Takai, a reactionary claiming to have seen the light and miraculously "turned" progressive.

• Mark Takai- 48,510 (45%)
• Donna Mercado Kim- 30,979 (29%)
• Stanley Chang- 11,023 (10%)
• Ikaika Anderson- 7,269 (7%)
• Will Espero- 4,166 (4%)
• Joey Manahan- 3,941 (4%)
• Kathryn Xian- 2,786 (3%)

The Congressional Progressive Caucus undercut progressive Stanley Chang at the last minute by making his endorsement into a dual endorsement of him and conservative homophobe and militarist Takai. The strategy, one of the key players told me, was to stop Donna Kim, an even worse reactionary. Although Takai and Kim have been allies in the legislature and although, when asked, she said if she couldn't win she would like to see Takai win, 2 Japanese-American Progressive Caucus members claimed they could guide Takai in a progressive direction. The last time I heard such a patently spurious argument was when another Progressive Caucus member wanted to endorse Republican-turned-fake-Dem Patrick Murphy in 2012, telling me he could guide Murphy. Murphy did win-- and immediately joined the GOP-leaning, Wall Street-owned and operated New Dems. Murphy has amassed one of the worst voting records of any Democrat in Congress-- a dismal ProgressivePunch crucial vote score of 48.17-- and has worked consistently to undermine progressive values and principles inside the caucus. This cycle he is already the 3rd biggest recipient-- $801,750-- of shady cash from the Financial Sector, right after crooked conservative sell-outs Joe Crowley and Jim Himes.

Even worse news is the still undetermined U.S. Senate race, where corrupt New Dem Colleen Hanabusa has come close to unseating progressive champion Brian Schatz. There are 2 rural precincts on the Big Island that couldn't vote because of Hurricane Iselle-- polling sites at Hawaii Paradise Community Center and Keone-opoko Elementary School-- so it will be some days before the election is decided. Democrats there will vote by absentee ballot. Right now, as best I can tell, the 245 of 247 precincts have given Schatz the tiniest of leads-- 105,794 (49.38%) to 104,008 (48.55%). He's leading her by 1,786 votes and it's a real stretch seeing her make up that kind of a lead in just two precincts.

As of the July 20 reporting deadline, Schatz had raised $4,914,576, spent $3,937,606 and was sitting on $976,970. Hanabusa had raised $2,876,245, spent $2,408,572 and was sitting on $522,566. She wrote herself a check for $117,000 out of the personal bribes she and her crooked husband have taken from developers and other shady operators who have financed her sleazy career. Conservative Democratic group EMILY's List put another $697,920 into independent expenditures on Hanabusa's behalf, including a $75,000 push this week. Environmental and progressive groups spent $591,353 to bolster Schatz.

Again, Hanabusa isn't as bad as Colmer. But this is 2014, not 1950 and she's about as bad as you can be and still legitimately call yourself a Democrat today. Yesterday was a terrible day for Hawaii. At least EMILY's List failed-- and failed miserably-- to foist Donna Mercado Kim on Hawaii. They have become the single most destructive player inside the Democratic Party coalition, almost never a force for progressive politics-- almost always a force for reactionary thinking, a real corrupt, money-based pillar of the Republican wing of the Democratic Party.


UPDATE: Who Are The Voters In The 2 Precincts?

The voters in the remaining precincts aren't exactly off the grid but many tend to be anti-establishment, anti-war, anti-GMO, pro-marijuana legalization, and anti-geothermal-- not exactly Hanabusa's crowd, no matter how you slice it or dice it. And she would have to beat Schatz in the two precincts on the Big Island by a 2-1 margin to take the lead, which isn't likely, no matter how much more money EMILY's List throws into her campaign. This post should give you a better idea about who the 8,000 people are who haven't voted yet. Excerpt: "In our district (Puna), Dennis got 60% of the caucus vote. On our island (Hawaii), 50%. In our state (Hawaii), 33%." Probably not admirers of militarist and corporate shill Colleen Hanabusa.

In Hawaii, Today's The Day… Two Moments Of Truth For Progressives

Today is primary day in Hawaii. Iselle hit Friday but had lost some ferocity and came in as a tropic storm. With the exception of the polling sites at Hawaii Paradise Community Center and Keone-opoko Elementray School on the Big Island, all polling sites will be open from 7AM 'til 6 PM. Hurricane Julio is also weakening slightly but may hit the Big Island tomorrow. The rare twin storms shouldn't hold down turnout in the election. And today's contests couldn't be clearer. The Senate race features two well-known politicians, one progressive (Senator Brian Schatz) and one from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party (conservative New Dem Colleen Hanabusa). We have been comparing and contrasting their positions all through the cycle and we have also pointed out a career predicated on corruption in Hanabusa's case. There are three main issues voters should have foremost in their minds when they walk into the polling station: Social Security, health care reform and Climate Change/the environment. Before we look at those again though, let's look again at the difference between the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party and the Republican wing of the party.

Schatz has been endorsed by Howard Dean, Elizabeth Warren, President Obama, virtually every Democrat in the Senate, MoveOn, the Sierra Club, Climate Hawks Vote and, of course, Blue America. Hanabusais the candidate of the corrupt conservative New Dems, a Wall Street owned Beltway operation funded by drug companies, banksters and the Military Industrial Complex. So far this cycle, among the New Dems' biggest donors are predatory Wall Street corporations with big agendas, like CitiBroup, Mortgage Bankers Assn, JP Morgan Chase, UBS, Investment Co Institute, National Venture Capital Assn, Deloitte LLP, US Bancorp, Visa, Prudential Financial, and Goldman Sachs. These are the "people" Hanabusa is indebted to, not the working families of Hawaii. And that explains her record in Congress and why it has been so very different from Senator Schatz's.

Let's start with Social Security. Schatz is a leader in the Senate on expanding Social Security. Hanabusa voted for the Simpson-Bowles plan that would cut Social Security benefits and raise the retirement age to 69. She favors chained CPI which would cut the cost of living allowances for retired people. That makes Wall Street very, very happy-- which explains why the've poured so much money into her shady career. But what about seniors who depend on these cost of living increases when prices rise for food, energy and medicine?

And speaking of medicine, Hanabusa has been a go-to shill for Big Phrama. She repaid companies like Amgen, UnitedHealth, Abbott, Wellpoint, tax cheats AbbVie Pharmaceuticals, and WalMart for financing her career by backing efforts to allow big drug companies to get massive giveaways from Medicare-- and sleazy Hanabusa staffers got caught illegally coordinating activities with drug company cronies. Schatz's record couldn't be more different. He co-sponsored a plan, supported by the AARP, to put Medicare on stronger financial footing and stop powerful drug companies from ripping off federal taxpayers. One works for the drug companies-- and to line her own pockets; one works for for ordinary families in Hawaii.

Not a single environmental group has endorsed Hanabusa. Every one of them-- who rarely agree on anything-- has endorsed Schatz. He's been one of the Senate's most effective champions on environmental issues, supporting the Clean Energy Initiative which tripled Hawai'i's renewable energy production from 6% to 18%, and supporting a bill that could lead to charging oil manufacturers a fee for emitting carbon. That work has earned him the endorsement of Al Gore and many local and national environmental groups. Meanwhile, Hanabusa voted for a coal-industry-backed bill to block enforcement of the Clean Air Act-- and cited it on her campaign website as one of her proudest votes.

Half Hawaii's voters also get to pick a replacement for Hanabusa in the Honolulu-based first CD. This should be day too. There's one progressive in the race: Stanley Chang, fighting off two grotesque conservatives from the Republican wing of the party: Donna Mercado Kim and Mark Takai. Stanley's absentee ballot push was easily the strongest in the race and he was up on TV before anyone else and started a serious field operation before anyone else. Partially due to the storms, but partially due to the especially nasty vitriol from EMILY's List in the Hanabusa race against Schatz, turnout looks depressed. That makes Stanley's aggressive field operation all the more valuable. The depressed vote today could push the share of the absentee ballots from a normal 50% to as high as 60 or even 70%. That bodes very well for Team Chang and much less well for the lazy efforts by his two main competitors. Let's hope we have two big victories to celebrate tomorrow, one for Brian Schatz and one for Stanley Chang.

Robert Reich And Stanley Chang Want To Solve One Of The Big Problems Endemic To Growing Inequality

The debate above on the topic: The Rich Are Taxed Enough-- Robert Reich and Mark Zandi vs Glenn Hubbard and Arthur Laffer-- took place in 2012. At its core, the question came down to whether or not the richest are paying their fair share in taxes. (Spoiler: the audience vote showed a gargantuan win for Reich and Zandi over the two clueless corporate stooges Hubbard and Laffer.)

Over the weekend, Reich did an interesting post, Work and Worth that almost anyone who finds himself in a high-paid job contemplates at one time or another. His assertion-- that "what someone is paid has little or no relationship to what their work is worth to society"-- doesn't delve into an even more basic question: is what gigantically rewarded executives are paid relationed to what their work is worth to the company paying them? Yesterday we looked at billionaire sociopath Bruce Rauner, a sleazy conservative crook running for governor of Illinois. Rauner and his wife pull in slightly over $50 million a year and-- using various loopholes and schemes-- pay virtually no taxes. Reich, though focuses on another financial manipulator to kick off his piece, crooked hedge-fund operator Steven Cohen, who made $2.3 Billion last year alone, "despite," Reich reminds us, "being slapped with a $1.8 billion fine after his firm pleaded guilty to insider trading?"

Reich compares a money-grubbing sociopath like Cohen to "social workers who put in long and difficult hours dealing with patients suffering from mental illness or substance abuse" who make around $38,000 a year, to "personal-care aides who assist the elderly, convalescents, and persons with disabilities" who make around half what the social workers make, to "hospital orderlies who feed, bathe, dress, and move patients, and empty their ben pans" ($24, 190/year), to kindergarten teachers, who make an average of $53,590 a year, rather than $2.3 billion.

Yet what would the rest of us do without these dedicated people?

…One study found that children with outstanding kindergarten teachers are more likely to go to college and less likely to become single parents than a random set of children similar to them in every way other than being assigned a superb teacher.

And what of writers, actors, painters, and poets? Only a tiny fraction ever become rich and famous. Most barely make enough to live on (many don’t, and are forced to take paying jobs to pursue their art). But society is surely all the richer for their efforts.

At the other extreme are hedge-fund and private-equity managers, investment bankers, corporate lawyers, management consultants, high-frequency traders, and top Washington lobbyists.

They’re getting paid vast sums for their labors. Yet it seems doubtful that society is really that much better off because of what they do.

I don’t mean to sound unduly harsh, but I’ve never heard of a hedge-fund manager whose jobs entails attending to basic human needs (unless you consider having more money as basic human need) or enriching our culture (except through the myriad novels, exposes, and movies made about greedy hedge-fund managers and investment bankers).

They don’t even build the economy.

Most financiers, corporate lawyers, lobbyists, and management consultants are competing with other financiers, lawyers, lobbyists, and management consultants in zero-sum games that take money out of one set of pockets and put it into another.

They’re paid gigantic amounts because winning these games can generate far bigger sums, while losing them can be extremely costly.

It’s said that by moving money to where it can make more money, these games make the economy more efficient.

In fact, the games amount to a mammoth waste of societal resources.

They demand ever more cunning innovations but they create no social value. High-frequency traders who win by a thousandth of a second can reap a fortune, but society as a whole is no better off.

Meanwhile, the games consume the energies of loads of talented people who might otherwise be making real contributions to society-- if not by tending to human needs or enriching our culture then by curing diseases or devising new technological breakthroughs, or helping solve some of our most intractable social problems.

In 2010 (the most recent date for which we have data) close to 36 percent of Princeton graduates went into finance (down from the pre-financial crisis high of 46 percent in 2006). Add in management consulting, and it was close to 60 percent.

Graduates of Harvard and other Ivy League universities are also more likely to enter finance and consulting than any other career.

The hefty endowments of such elite institutions are swollen with tax-subsidized donations from wealthy alumni, many of whom are seeking to guarantee their own kids’ admissions so they too can become enormously rich financiers and management consultants.

But I can think of a better way for taxpayers to subsidize occupations with more social merit: Forgive the student debts of graduates who choose social work, child care, elder care, nursing, and teaching.

Next Saturday, August 9, Honolulu voters will pick between a gaggle of Democrats running to replace Colleen Hanabusa. There is only one progressive in contention, City Councilman Stanley Chang. Like Reich, he is very focused on the societal value of education. In his Agenda For Change he calls for "a year of college tuition for every year of public service a young person invests in military service, the Peace Corps, VISTA, Teach For America, or other qualified programs. The years following World War II showed how robust investment in public universities along with support from programs such as the GI Bill combined to create an educated and productive workforce. Education represents a fantastic return on investment. Educated workers create wealth for themselves, their families, their communities, and the companies that employ them. A program to guarantee free college tuition for students who devote themselves to service would both produce a workforce for the 21st century and instill a spirit of giving back to the community in the next generation."

And like Reich, Chang recognizes that "debt is crushing our young generation before they even start their careers." He would like to go to Washington to work on a solution. "Profiteering in student loan programs needs to be stopped. Our parents may have been able to work their way through college, but with high tuition and our rising cost of living, this is increasingly out of reach for today’s students. Today, too many college students are forced to take out expensive loans in order to finance their education, and can’t get off on the right foot once they graduate and start working. If subject to predatory interest rates, the paychecks for their first few years on the job will be siphoned away. They will not be able to save to buy a home and support a family. If the prospect of paying for college is too daunting for today’s working families, our economy and productivity will suffer in the long run. Let’s make sure that the student loan industry is appropriately regulated so that funding is made available to our young people at reasonable rates."

This map showing the richest person in each state circulated widely online over the weekend. The only states blessed enough to not have any blood-sucking billionaires are Delaware, Alaska (the socialist states that gives everyone in the state a share of their oil), North Dakota and Maine. Just for the heck of it, I decided to see if there was any pattern of political giving among the fifty richest people of each state.

• WA- Bill Gates ($80B)- huge donor to both parties
• NE- Warren Buffett ($63.1B)- huge donor to both parties
• CA- Larry Ellison ($49.4B)- moderate donor to both parties
• NY- David Koch ($41.4B)- huge donor to Republicans
• KS- Charles Koch ($41.4B)- huge donor to Republicans
• WY- Christy Walton ($37.9B)- huge donor to Republicans
• NV- Sheldon Adelson ($35.7B)- huge donor to Republicans
• AR- Jim Walton ($35.7B)- huge donor to Republicans
• TX- Alice Walton ($35.3B)- huge donor to Republicans
• VA- Jacqueline Mars ($20B)- modest donor to Republicans
• OK- Harold Hamm ($19.7B)- huge donor to Republicans
• OR- Phil Knight ($19B)- big donor, mostly to Republicans
• MA- Abigail Johnson ($18.2B)- moderate donor, mostly to Republicans
• CO- Charles Ergen ($16.6B)- big donor to Democrats
• GA- Ann Cox Chambers ($16.1B)- huge donor, both parties
• CT- Ray Dalio ($14.4B)- big donor to Republicans
• MO- Jack Taylor ($13.5B)- big donor, mostly for Republicans
• NH- Rick Cohen ($11.2B)- modest donor to Republicans
• NJ- David Tepper ($10B)-big donor to Republicans
• FL- Charles Johnson ($8.1B)- big donor for Republicans
• NC- James Goodnight ($8.1B)- big donor, both parties
• HI- Pierre Omidyar ($7.9B)- big donor for Democrats
• MI- Hank & Doug Mijer ($7.9B)- big donors to Republicans
• WI- John Menard ($7.7B)- big donor to Republicans
• TN- Tom Frist ($6.9B)- modest donor for Republicans
• MT- Dennis Washington ($6.1N)- big donor for both parties
• IN- Gayle Cook ($6B)- small donor for Republicans
• OH- Leslie Wexner ($5.7B)- big donor for Republicans
• IL- Ken Griffin ($5.5B)- huge donor to Republicans
• MN- Whitney MacMillan ($5.3B)- big donor for Republicans
• AZ- Bruce Halle ($4.8B)- big donor for Republicans
• MD- Ted Lerner ($4.6)- small donor, both parties
• VT- John Abele ($3.3B)- small donor, both parties
• IA- Harry Stine ($3.1B)- modest donor to Republicans
• PA- Mary Alice Dorrance Malone ($3B)- small donor to Republicans
• SC- Anita Zucker ($2.7B)- modest donor to both parties
• MS- Leslie Lampton ($2.4B)- modest donor to Republicans
• KY- Bradley Hughes ($2.3B)- huge donor to Republicans
• RI- Jonathan Nelson ($1.8B)- modest donor, both parties
• WV- Jim Justice ($1.6B)- modest donor to both parties
• LA- Tom Benson ($1.5B)- big donor to Republicans
• SD- T. Denny Sanford ($1.3B)- modest donor to Republicans
• UT- Jon Huntsman, Sr ($1.2B)- huge donor to Republicans
• ID- Frank Vandersloot ($1.2B)- huge donor to Republicans
• AL- Margerite Harbert ($1B)- small donor to Republicans
• NM- Maloof Bros ($1B)- modest donor mostly to Democrats
• ND- Gary Tharaldson ($900M)- modest donor to both parties
• ME- Leon Gorman ($860M)- modest donor mostly to Democrats
• DE- Robert Gore ($830M)- modest donor to both parties
• AK- Robert Gillam ($700M)- modest donor to both parties