theguardian--2020-06-23--Senate Democrats and Republicans clash over police reform bill vote

Senate Democrats have signaled they will block a Republican police reform bill that critics say offers a “ woefully inadequate response ” to racial disparities in American policing practices .
The Senate minority leader , Chuck Schumer , and fellow Democratic senators Cory Booker and Kamala Harris , sent a letter to the majority leader , Mitch McConnell , on Tuesday urging him not to hold a key procedural vote this week on the Republican senator Tim Scott ’ s police reform bill .
“ This is a serious challenge requiring serious solutions , ” the three senators ’ letter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the floor of the Senate is a woefully inadequate response , and we urge you to bring meaningful legislation to the floor for a vote .
“ This bill is not salvageable and we need bipartisan talks to get to a constructive starting point , ” they added .
“ We don ’ t need to study the problem of police misconduct and violence , we need to solve it , ” Schumer said on the Senate floor .
The Democratic opposition is being backed by the country ’ s leading civil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Crump , representing the families of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor , two African Americans whose deaths in police interactions have sparked worldwide protests over racial bias in policing .
“ The Black community is tired of the lip service , ” Crump said in a statement .
Republicans need seven of their Democratic colleagues to support opening debate on the Scott bill , so the Democrats have the ability to block the legislation if they are unified in opposition to it .
McConnell has called on Democrats to vote in favor of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disagreements on the bill to be worked out through debate and amendments .
The vote on whether to advance the police reform bill is expected to take place tomorrow .
Democratic lawmakers have previously complained that Scott ’ s bill only incentivizes police departments to ban police chokeholds by threatening to hold up federal funds .
In contrast , a rival police reform bill put forward by House Democrats explicitly bans police chokeholds and no-knock warrants , like the one used when Taylor was killed .
The House is expected to pass the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but won ’ t be taken up in the Senate as McConnell has already said he considers it dead on arrival .
“ We ’ re ready to make a law , not just make a point , ” McConnell said as he opened the Senate on Tuesday .
He said Americans deserve better than a partisan stalemate .
“ We ’ ll find out whether our Democratic colleagues share our ambition or whether they chose to duck the issue and leave the country in the lurch.
” But the partisan standoff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Congress will approve any police reform legislation before the November election , despite the ongoing widespread protests in response to police brutality .
During floor debate , Republicans insisted Democrats would have a chance to amend any bill if they allow the debate to begin .
But Democrats countered there is no agreement their changes would be up for consideration .
“ Now is the time for Congress to pass legislation that will bring real change , ” Harris said .
Floyd ’ s 25 May death in Minneapolis , when a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nearly nine minutes , has sparked weeks of worldwide protests and stirred strong public sentiment for stopping excessive force by police , especially against African Americans .
Crump , the attorney for the families , said the GOP package is in direct contrast to the demands of the people , who have taken to the streets , to call for the reallocation of resources in order to improve social safety nets and public mental health programs .
Reuters and the Associated Press contributed to this report

Senate Democrats have signaled they will block a Republican police reform bill that critics say offers a “woefully inadequate response” to racial disparities in American policing practices.
The Senate minority leader, Chuck Schumer, and fellow Democratic senators Cory Booker and Kamala Harris, sent a letter to the majority leader, Mitch McConnell, on Tuesday urging him not to hold a key procedural vote this week on the Republican senator Tim Scott’s police reform bill.
“This is a serious challenge requiring serious solutions,” the three senators’ letter says. “Bringing the Justice Act to the floor of the Senate is a woefully inadequate response, and we urge you to bring meaningful legislation to the floor for a vote.
“This bill is not salvageable and we need bipartisan talks to get to a constructive starting point,” they added.
“We don’t need to study the problem of police misconduct and violence, we need to solve it,” Schumer said on the Senate floor.
The Democratic opposition is being backed by the country’s leading civil rights organizations and the lawyer, Benjamin Crump, representing the families of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor, two African Americans whose deaths in police interactions have sparked worldwide protests over racial bias in policing.
“The Black community is tired of the lip service,” Crump said in a statement.
Republicans need seven of their Democratic colleagues to support opening debate on the Scott bill, so the Democrats have the ability to block the legislation if they are unified in opposition to it.
McConnell has called on Democrats to vote in favor of the motion to proceed and allow for disagreements on the bill to be worked out through debate and amendments. The vote on whether to advance the police reform bill is expected to take place tomorrow.
Democratic lawmakers have previously complained that Scott’s bill only incentivizes police departments to ban police chokeholds by threatening to hold up federal funds.
In contrast, a rival police reform bill put forward by House Democrats explicitly bans police chokeholds and no-knock warrants, like the one used when Taylor was killed. The House is expected to pass the Democratic police reform bill later this week, but won’t be taken up in the Senate as McConnell has already said he considers it dead on arrival.
“We’re ready to make a law, not just make a point,” McConnell said as he opened the Senate on Tuesday. He said Americans deserve better than a partisan stalemate.
“We’ll find out whether our Democratic colleagues share our ambition or whether they chose to duck the issue and leave the country in the lurch.”
But the partisan standoff means it is less and less likely that Congress will approve any police reform legislation before the November election, despite the ongoing widespread protests in response to police brutality.
During floor debate, Republicans insisted Democrats would have a chance to amend any bill if they allow the debate to begin. But Democrats countered there is no agreement their changes would be up for consideration.
“Now is the time for Congress to pass legislation that will bring real change,” Harris said.
Floyd’s 25 May death in Minneapolis, when a white officer knelt on his neck for nearly nine minutes, has sparked weeks of worldwide protests and stirred strong public sentiment for stopping excessive force by police, especially against African Americans.
Crump, the attorney for the families, said the GOP package is in direct contrast to the demands of the people, who have taken to the streets, to call for the reallocation of resources in order to improve social safety nets and public mental health programs.
Reuters and the Associated Press contributed to this report


theguardian--2020-06-23--'An embarrassment': Trump's justice department goes quiet on voting rights

The Department of Justice ( DoJ ) , the agency with unmatched power to prevent discrimination at the ballot box , has been glaringly quiet when it comes to enforcing voting rights ahead of the 2020 election , former department attorneys say .
Amid concern that the attorney general , William Barr , is using the department to advance Trump ’ s political interests , observers say the department is failing to protect the voting rights of minority groups .
Remarkably , while the department has been involved in a handful of cases since Donald Trump ’ s inauguration , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than opposing them .
The department ’ s limited public activity has been striking , particularly as several states have seen voters wait hours in line to vote and jurisdictions are rapidly limiting in-person voting options because of the Covid-19 pandemic .
“ It just seems like there ’ s nobody home , which is tragic , ” said William Yeomans , who worked in the department ’ s civil rights division , which includes the voting section , for over two decades .
“ This is especially sad considering the plethora of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Georgia to Wisconsin.
” Until late May , the justice department had not filed a new case under the Voting Rights Act , the powerful 1965 law that prohibits voting discrimination , during Trump ’ s presidency .
( In 2019 , it settled a Voting Rights Act case in Michigan that was filed in the final days of the Obama administration . )
“ When the top cop on the beat says , ‘ You know what , I ’ m busy with other stuff , don ’ t bother me @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And it ’ s precisely the wrong message to be sending , ” said Justin Levitt , who served as a deputy assistant attorney general in DoJ ’ s civil rights division during the Obama administration .
The justice department provided the Guardian with a list of nearly two dozen cases and matters the voting section has been involved in since 2017 .
The list included several settlements with states to guarantee that military voters can get their absentee ballots .
The department has also settled with several states to get them to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voter rolls – an issue that has drawn increased attention from Republicans and conservative groups in recent years .
The career attorneys in the voting section probably also have ongoing investigations that are not public .
Several former DoJ employees reviewed the list of cases at the Guardian ’ s request and said it did not reflect strong enforcement of voting rights laws .
Yeomans noted that in all of the major litigation the department cited , the department had opposed the interests of minority voters .
“ The list is an embarrassment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has abdicated its responsibility to enforce the Voting Rights Act .
There is little of substance here , ” he said .
“ This is pathetically little production for a very large section of lawyers.
” Sasha Samberg-Champion , another former justice department attorney , said the cases did not reflect robust enforcement of voting rights .
“ Frankly it ’ s hard to see what the voting rights section is doing all day based on this list , ” he said .
The justice department does not traditionally get involved in many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a big difference when it does .
The department is well-resourced and , because it represents the position of the United States , carries credibility that can ’ t be matched by private plaintiffs .
It can have leverage with local jurisdictions and judges listen when the department speaks .
While advocacy groups and political parties are bringing a flood of voting rights lawsuits , there is simply “ no substitute ” in voting rights enforcement for the justice department , said Chiraag Bains , a former attorney in the civil rights division @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suppression is rampant and DoJ ’ s absence is a major blow to the collective effort to save civil rights this election cycle , ” said Bains , now director of legal strategies at Demos , a civil rights thinktank that frequently challenges voting restrictions .
“ The department should be bringing these cases themselves , or at least supporting us through amicus filings .
They are nowhere to be found .
It ’ s dereliction of duty.
” Trump has said mail-in voting is his “ biggest risk ” to re-election , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it .
The attorney general told Fox News on Sunday that foreign nations could print fraudulent absentee ballots to disrupt the election – something election officials say would be virtually impossible .
The justice department ’ s silence comes at a time when the supreme court has severely curbed the tools at its disposal to prevent discriminatory voting processes .
In 2013 , the court struck down a key provision in the Voting Rights Act that required certain jurisdictions with a history of voting discrimination to get any voting changes approved by either @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Washington DC before they went into effect .
Now the department and civil rights groups have to proactively bring suits to stop discriminatory voting laws .
Following that 2013 decision , Barack Obama ’ s justice department got involved in three major voting rights lawsuits – two in Texas , one in North Carolina – meant as a signal the department was going to continue to try and aggressively enforce what was left of the Voting Rights Act .
The Trump administration has not undertaken any similar kind of major enforcement action @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re not enforcing the Voting Rights Act , ” Yeomans said .
“ That ’ s the thing about the civil rights division all around .
It ’ s a plaintiffs ’ institution .
It ’ s a proactive institution .
And so , the way to make it ineffective is simply not to do anything.
” In some of the major cases where it has been active , the agency reversed its position from the Obama administration to take a new posture backing voting restrictions .
Weeks after Trump took office @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ending a longstanding legal claim that Texas ’ voter ID law – one of the strictest in the country at the time – was passed with discriminatory intent .
Months later , the department flipped sides in a different closely-watched case , dropping its opposition to an Ohio law that allowed the state to aggressively remove voters from the rolls and argued in support of Ohio at the supreme court .
In 2013 , the justice department argued Texas should be put under federal supervision after being found to have intentionally discriminated against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t do it again .
But last year , it reversed its position .
In all three of the cases , the briefs explaining the reversals were not signed by career attorneys at the department – a strong signal they did not agree with its contents .
“ The reversals in Texas voter ID and redistricting should be scandalous , ” said Levitt , who worked on the cases in the Obama administration .
For decades the department had a reputation for relatively consistent enforcement of voting rights laws .
Even during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when the civil rights division was rocked by a political hiring scandal , the voting section filed several cases under a provision of the Voting Rights Act that guarantees access to the ballot for non-english speakers , said James Peyton McCrary , a historian who worked in the voting section from 1990 until 2016 .
“ The Department of Justice has a longstanding reputation for enforcing the Voting Rights Act and not playing politics with it , ” said Gerry Hebert , a voting rights attorney at the Campaign Legal Center who worked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Those of us who have been in private practice or nonprofit organizations often welcomed the participation of the Department of Justice because they not only have the honest broker reputation , but courts respected their views because of their vast experience.
” More recently , there have been some encouraging enforcement signs from the department .
In the late May decision , it announced a settlement under the Voting Rights Act with a South Dakota school district .
The district agreed to change the way it was electing candidates to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the current system was discriminatory against the district ’ s sizable Native American population .
The department also announced a settlement in Arkansas in early May under a different federal law that will make it easier there for residents to update their voter registration .
“ Both are quite good , and the product of career attorneys doing what career attorneys do .
There ’ s still a lot more the section could be doing , but both of these are good signs , ” Levitt said of the cases .
Samberg-Champion also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case in South Carolina where the justice department filed a brief arguing that South Carolina ’ s witness requirement for absentee ballots did not violate the Voting Rights Act .
He noted that while the DoJ had weighed in on a particularly narrow issue in the case , it had chosen not to weigh in on the other arguments challenging the law in the case .
“ That ’ s a small victory , but I think it ’ s important – especially because I imagine the judge couldn ’ t help but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the other claims and draw some inferences from that regarding their merits , ” he said .
Some voting rights attorneys also noted the department ’ s silence was two-sided .
While the department isn ’ t being particularly helpful in enforcing voting rights , it also isn ’ t bringing a wave of cases damaging voting protections .
“ I actually think it may be to the public ’ s benefit if they stay out of high-profile cases , given the track record of this administration , ” Bains said .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was concerned Barr would use the department to ramp up prosecutions for non-citizens and other ineligible voters the civil rights division remained quiet .
“ You can bet before the election they ’ re going to have the US attorneys offices fired up and have everyone all ready to go , ” he said .
“ That has the potential for intimidation , particularly when there ’ s no counterbalance .
”

The Department of Justice (DoJ), the agency with unmatched power to prevent discrimination at the ballot box, has been glaringly quiet when it comes to enforcing voting rights ahead of the 2020 election, former department attorneys say.
Amid concern that the attorney general, William Barr, is using the department to advance Trump’s political interests, observers say the department is failing to protect the voting rights of minority groups. Remarkably, while the department has been involved in a handful of cases since Donald Trump’s inauguration, it has largely defended voting restrictions rather than opposing them.
The department’s limited public activity has been striking, particularly as several states have seen voters wait hours in line to vote and jurisdictions are rapidly limiting in-person voting options because of the Covid-19 pandemic.
“It just seems like there’s nobody home, which is tragic,” said William Yeomans, who worked in the department’s civil rights division, which includes the voting section, for over two decades. “This is especially sad considering the plethora of voting issues crying out for action, from Georgia to Wisconsin.”
Until late May, the justice department had not filed a new case under the Voting Rights Act, the powerful 1965 law that prohibits voting discrimination, during Trump’s presidency. (In 2019, it settled a Voting Rights Act case in Michigan that was filed in the final days of the Obama administration.)
“When the top cop on the beat says, ‘You know what, I’m busy with other stuff, don’t bother me,’ that sends a message. And it’s precisely the wrong message to be sending,” said Justin Levitt, who served as a deputy assistant attorney general in DoJ’s civil rights division during the Obama administration.
“The civil rights division has continued to advance a number of open and active Voting Rights Act investigations around the country and takes these investigations seriously,” said Matt Lloyd, a DoJ spokesman. “These investigations are at various stages and, in keeping with the Division’s longstanding practice in the voting context, the Division keeps these investigations confidential unless and until a lawsuit is filed.”
The justice department provided the Guardian with a list of nearly two dozen cases and matters the voting section has been involved in since 2017. The list included several settlements with states to guarantee that military voters can get their absentee ballots. The department has also settled with several states to get them to comply with federal law to clean up voter rolls – an issue that has drawn increased attention from Republicans and conservative groups in recent years.
Several former DoJ employees reviewed the list of cases at the Guardian’s request and said it did not reflect strong enforcement of voting rights laws. Yeomans noted that in all of the major litigation the department cited, the department had opposed the interests of minority voters.
“The list is an embarrassment. It documents that the voting section has abdicated its responsibility to enforce the Voting Rights Act. There is little of substance here,” he said. “This is pathetically little production for a very large section of lawyers.”
Sasha Samberg-Champion, another former justice department attorney, said the cases did not reflect robust enforcement of voting rights.
“Frankly it’s hard to see what the voting rights section is doing all day based on this list,” he said.
Voter suppression is rampant and DoJ’s absence is a major blow to the collective effort to save civil rights Chiraag Bains
The justice department does not traditionally get involved in many voting cases, but it can make a big difference when it does. The department is well-resourced and, because it represents the position of the United States, carries credibility that can’t be matched by private plaintiffs. It can have leverage with local jurisdictions and judges listen when the department speaks. While advocacy groups and political parties are bringing a flood of voting rights lawsuits, there is simply “no substitute” in voting rights enforcement for the justice department, said Chiraag Bains, a former attorney in the civil rights division during the Obama administration.
“Voter suppression is rampant and DoJ’s absence is a major blow to the collective effort to save civil rights this election cycle,” said Bains, now director of legal strategies at Demos, a civil rights thinktank that frequently challenges voting restrictions. “The department should be bringing these cases themselves, or at least supporting us through amicus filings. They are nowhere to be found. It’s dereliction of duty.”
Trump has said mail-in voting is his “biggest risk” to re-election, and Barr has signaled his opposition to it. The attorney general told Fox News on Sunday that foreign nations could print fraudulent absentee ballots to disrupt the election – something election officials say would be virtually impossible.
The justice department’s silence comes at a time when the supreme court has severely curbed the tools at its disposal to prevent discriminatory voting processes. In 2013, the court struck down a key provision in the Voting Rights Act that required certain jurisdictions with a history of voting discrimination to get any voting changes approved by either the justice department or a federal court in Washington DC before they went into effect. Now the department and civil rights groups have to proactively bring suits to stop discriminatory voting laws.
Following that 2013 decision, Barack Obama’s justice department got involved in three major voting rights lawsuits – two in Texas, one in North Carolina – meant as a signal the department was going to continue to try and aggressively enforce what was left of the Voting Rights Act. The Trump administration has not undertaken any similar kind of major enforcement action.
“My impression is that they’re not enforcing the Voting Rights Act,” Yeomans said. “That’s the thing about the civil rights division all around. It’s a plaintiffs’ institution. It’s a proactive institution. And so, the way to make it ineffective is simply not to do anything.”
In some of the major cases where it has been active, the agency reversed its position from the Obama administration to take a new posture backing voting restrictions.
Weeks after Trump took office, the justice department announced it was ending a longstanding legal claim that Texas’ voter ID law – one of the strictest in the country at the time – was passed with discriminatory intent. Months later, the department flipped sides in a different closely-watched case, dropping its opposition to an Ohio law that allowed the state to aggressively remove voters from the rolls and argued in support of Ohio at the supreme court. In 2013, the justice department argued Texas should be put under federal supervision after being found to have intentionally discriminated against voters during redistricting so that it wouldn’t do it again. But last year, it reversed its position.
In all three of the cases, the briefs explaining the reversals were not signed by career attorneys at the department – a strong signal they did not agree with its contents. “The reversals in Texas voter ID and redistricting should be scandalous,” said Levitt, who worked on the cases in the Obama administration.
For decades the department had a reputation for relatively consistent enforcement of voting rights laws. Even during the administration of George W Bush, when the civil rights division was rocked by a political hiring scandal, the voting section filed several cases under a provision of the Voting Rights Act that guarantees access to the ballot for non-english speakers, said James Peyton McCrary, a historian who worked in the voting section from 1990 until 2016.
“The Department of Justice has a longstanding reputation for enforcing the Voting Rights Act and not playing politics with it,” said Gerry Hebert, a voting rights attorney at the Campaign Legal Center who worked at the department for over two decades. “Those of us who have been in private practice or nonprofit organizations often welcomed the participation of the Department of Justice because they not only have the honest broker reputation, but courts respected their views because of their vast experience.”
It may be to the public’s benefit if they stay out of high-profile cases, given the track record of this administration Chiraag Bains
More recently, there have been some encouraging enforcement signs from the department. In the late May decision, it announced a settlement under the Voting Rights Act with a South Dakota school district. The district agreed to change the way it was electing candidates to the school board after the justice department argued the current system was discriminatory against the district’s sizable Native American population. The department also announced a settlement in Arkansas in early May under a different federal law that will make it easier there for residents to update their voter registration.
“Both are quite good, and the product of career attorneys doing what career attorneys do. There’s still a lot more the section could be doing, but both of these are good signs,” Levitt said of the cases.
Samberg-Champion also saw a silver lining in a recent case in South Carolina where the justice department filed a brief arguing that South Carolina’s witness requirement for absentee ballots did not violate the Voting Rights Act. He noted that while the DoJ had weighed in on a particularly narrow issue in the case, it had chosen not to weigh in on the other arguments challenging the law in the case.
“That’s a small victory, but I think it’s important – especially because I imagine the judge couldn’t help but notice the DoJ’s abstention from the other claims and draw some inferences from that regarding their merits,” he said.
Some voting rights attorneys also noted the department’s silence was two-sided. While the department isn’t being particularly helpful in enforcing voting rights, it also isn’t bringing a wave of cases damaging voting protections.
“I actually think it may be to the public’s benefit if they stay out of high-profile cases, given the track record of this administration,” Bains said.
As the election nears, Yeomans said he was concerned Barr would use the department to ramp up prosecutions for non-citizens and other ineligible voters the civil rights division remained quiet.
“You can bet before the election they’re going to have the US attorneys offices fired up and have everyone all ready to go,” he said. “That has the potential for intimidation, particularly when there’s no counterbalance.”


theguardian--2020-06-23--'We can stop the cycle': crime survivors work toward prevention, not policing

In August 2009 , two people shot 26-year-old Aswad Thomas during a robbery attempt .
He suffered two gunshot wounds that pierced his lung , dislocated his shoulder , and ended his burgeoning professional basketball career .
After the shooting , Thomas learned that his assailant had been shot four years prior .
Thomas believes that if the young man had received mental health services early on , then perhaps the violent incident may have been avoided .
“ His unaddressed trauma resulted in further victimization , ” said Thomas , who is now the managing director of Crime Survivors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ I am a victim of gun violence , my father was a victim of gun violence , my brother is a victim of gun violence , and none of us received help , ” he continued .
“ Young black men are often seen as the most violent but the truth is we are the most harmed and least supported.
” CSSJ is a network of crime survivors in states including California and Florida who lobby for greater access to state and local victim compensation programs that provide money to pay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and investment in alternatives to incarceration .
And as calls and efforts to defund police departments mount in the wake of George Floyd ’ s death and other recent high profile police killings , crime survivors such as Thomas are urging state officials to use this opportunity to bolster victims ’ services such as mental health care , and community-led violence prevention efforts .
“ If we want to talk about reinvestments , we must listen to crime victims because we are experts on what can stop the cycles of crime , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vary from person to person but at its most radical , defunding is one of the first steps toward totally dismantling police departments and using that money to fund community education , housing and health services .
Cities and other local authorities have signaled a willingness to change .
Since the beginning of June local school districts throughout the US have cut ties with campus police , while cities such as Los Angeles and San Francisco vowed to funnel money away from police budgets and into services for underserved communities .
And in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the majority of the city ’ s council members announced their intention to dismantle their police force .
These and similar moves have been met with a common critique : that any reduction to police will lead to more crime , and once that crime happens there will be no police to respond and help victims .
But some crime survivors argue that an increased police presence and militarization hasn ’ t addressed the roots of community violence , such as income inequality , housing instability , and years of unaddressed collective trauma @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leanings and definitions of justice vary greatly , for many black and brown crime survivors in low-income communities , safety relies less on punitive responses from police and prosecutors and more on breaking cycles of violence .
Tinisch Hollins , a San Francisco native , has lost two brothers – one in 2013 and another in 2017 – to gun violence , and has also experienced various forms of abuse .
As the California director of CSSJ she advocates for policies that will support underserved survivors of color for whom services are often @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both community and police violence .
She also said that she ’ s “ infuriated ” by the rhetoric around defunding the police and increases in crime .
“ Folks push this narrative on behalf of crime victims but there ’ s a lack of acknowledgement of how the justice system has never done a service to black people , ” Hollins said .
“ We have been harmed by violence in our communities because so much investment has gone into the criminal justice system as a response to public safety and not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1970s , as tough on crime policies such as the 1994 Crime Bill were implemented throughout the US , local spending on police increased from 6.6 % to 7.8 % of local budgets , according to a New York Times analysis .
Still , nearly 65 % of homicides of black and latino people people go unsolved , according to an analysis of 22 US cities.These low arrest and adjudication rates also apply to instances of sexual assault and rape .
“ We often justify sending mostly young people of color to prison @ @ @ @ @ @ @ name of victims ’ rights , and yet victims are hung up to dry , ” said San Francisco district attorney Chesa Boudin .
“ Much of policing and the justice system isn ’ t about healing , it ’ s about using victims to justify mass incarceration.
” Advocates say that this phenomenon coupled with high levels of police distrust among underserved communities of color underscores the need for increased investments in non-law enforcement public safety efforts , which are proven to diffuse community conflicts and prevent retaliatory acts of violence .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t make half of what police officers make , but we put ourselves in jeopardy just as much , and are unarmed , ” said Lanaisha Edwards , a southern California-based gang interventionist and crime survivor .
“ If officials value safety they need to put their money where their mouth is.
” Two of Edwards ’ brothers – Vinnie and Vaughn – were shot and killed in 2016 and 2017 respectively .
After Vinnie ’ s murder , Edwards has become a gang interventionist who goes into schools and local neighborhoods @ @ @ @ @ @ @ away from crime .
She also says that these programs have been historically underfunded despite their promising outcomes .
“ It ’ s past that time for lawmakers and police to start listening for safer solutions and allowing survivors and community members to have a seat at the table where these decisions are being made for us , ” Edwards continued .

In August 2009, two people shot 26-year-old Aswad Thomas during a robbery attempt. He suffered two gunshot wounds that pierced his lung, dislocated his shoulder, and ended his burgeoning professional basketball career.
After the shooting, Thomas learned that his assailant had been shot four years prior. Thomas believes that if the young man had received mental health services early on, then perhaps the violent incident may have been avoided.
“His unaddressed trauma resulted in further victimization,” said Thomas, who is now the managing director of Crime Survivors for Safety and Justice (CSSJ).
“I am a victim of gun violence, my father was a victim of gun violence, my brother is a victim of gun violence, and none of us received help,” he continued. “Young black men are often seen as the most violent but the truth is we are the most harmed and least supported.”
CSSJ is a network of crime survivors in states including California and Florida who lobby for greater access to state and local victim compensation programs that provide money to pay for things like funeral and relocation expenses, and investment in alternatives to incarceration. And as calls and efforts to defund police departments mount in the wake of George Floyd’s death and other recent high profile police killings, crime survivors such as Thomas are urging state officials to use this opportunity to bolster victims’ services such as mental health care, and community-led violence prevention efforts.
“If we want to talk about reinvestments, we must listen to crime victims because we are experts on what can stop the cycles of crime,” Thomas continued.
The definition can vary from person to person but at its most radical, defunding is one of the first steps toward totally dismantling police departments and using that money to fund community education, housing and health services.
Cities and other local authorities have signaled a willingness to change. Since the beginning of June local school districts throughout the US have cut ties with campus police, while cities such as Los Angeles and San Francisco vowed to funnel money away from police budgets and into services for underserved communities. And in Minneapolis, where Floyd was killed, the majority of the city’s council members announced their intention to dismantle their police force.
These and similar moves have been met with a common critique: that any reduction to police will lead to more crime, and once that crime happens there will be no police to respond and help victims.
“Defunding Police would be good for Robbers & Rapists.” @SenBillCassidy — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 9, 2020
But some crime survivors argue that an increased police presence and militarization hasn’t addressed the roots of community violence, such as income inequality, housing instability, and years of unaddressed collective trauma. And while the experiences, political leanings and definitions of justice vary greatly, for many black and brown crime survivors in low-income communities, safety relies less on punitive responses from police and prosecutors and more on breaking cycles of violence.
Tinisch Hollins, a San Francisco native, has lost two brothers – one in 2013 and another in 2017 – to gun violence, and has also experienced various forms of abuse. As the California director of CSSJ she advocates for policies that will support underserved survivors of color for whom services are often unavailable despite them being disparately harmed by both community and police violence. She also said that she’s “infuriated” by the rhetoric around defunding the police and increases in crime.
“Folks push this narrative on behalf of crime victims but there’s a lack of acknowledgement of how the justice system has never done a service to black people,” Hollins said. “We have been harmed by violence in our communities because so much investment has gone into the criminal justice system as a response to public safety and not into healing or restoration.”
Since the 1970s, as tough on crime policies such as the 1994 Crime Bill were implemented throughout the US, local spending on police increased from 6.6% to 7.8% of local budgets, according to a New York Times analysis. Still, nearly 65% of homicides of black and latino people people go unsolved, according to an analysis of 22 US cities.These low arrest and adjudication rates also apply to instances of sexual assault and rape.
“We often justify sending mostly young people of color to prison for lengthy periods of time in the name of victims’ rights, and yet victims are hung up to dry,” said San Francisco district attorney Chesa Boudin. “Much of policing and the justice system isn’t about healing, it’s about using victims to justify mass incarceration.”
Advocates say that this phenomenon coupled with high levels of police distrust among underserved communities of color underscores the need for increased investments in non-law enforcement public safety efforts, which are proven to diffuse community conflicts and prevent retaliatory acts of violence.
“Gang interventionists and violence interrupters don’t make half of what police officers make, but we put ourselves in jeopardy just as much, and are unarmed,” said Lanaisha Edwards, a southern California-based gang interventionist and crime survivor. “If officials value safety they need to put their money where their mouth is.”
Two of Edwards’ brothers – Vinnie and Vaughn – were shot and killed in 2010 and 2017 respectively. After Vinnie’s murder, Edwards has become a gang interventionist who goes into schools and local neighborhoods to diffuse conflicts and divert young people away from crime. She also says that these programs have been historically underfunded despite their promising outcomes.
“It’s past that time for lawmakers and police to start listening for safer solutions and allowing survivors and community members to have a seat at the table where these decisions are being made for us,” Edwards continued.


theguardian--2020-06-23--Trump faces pressure to reset campaign after Tulsa rally caps gloomy week

Donald Trump flies to Arizona on Tuesday under pressure to change course in his re-election bid after a dismal week culminated in the debacle of thousands of empty seats at a campaign rally .
The US president was reportedly angry on Saturday when his first rally in three months , a defiant gamble amid the coronavirus pandemic intended as a daunting show of force , backfired with poor attendance in Tulsa , Oklahoma , a Republican heartland .
In what amounts to a relaunch of a relaunch , Trump now travels to Arizona , a battleground state , to embrace @ @ @ @ @ @ @ event marking the 200th mile of his wall on the US-Mexico border ( most of the construction has in fact replaced existing barriers ) .
The president will then speak at a “ Students for Trump ” event in Phoenix .
Despite soaring cases of coronavirus in Arizona , his campaign team will be hoping for an enthusiastic turnout to get back on track .
It is not known when Trump will hold his next full rally .
Trump trails his Democratic opponent Joe Biden in numerous polls , both nationally and in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some cases by double digits .
Observers argue that Tulsa was a warning that he needs to reset , not least because of the health risks of big indoor rallies - but there appears to be little chance of him heeding advice .
“ From what I ’ ve been told , Trump just insists on these rallies and he wants more and not fewer compared to 2016 because he ’ s got all of the trappings of office and he can fly Air Force One low so people can be awed and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said Larry Sabato , director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia .
“ Obviously , he didn ’ t calculate properly for the pandemic and other factors .
He thinks they can correct it and go on .
He wants one every couple of weeks or more frequently .
He didn ’ t learn a thing .
His campaign staff would gladly give them up , along with the tweets , if they could .
But they can ’ t. ” Trump aides claimed that more than a million @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rally .
The city fire marshal ’ s office reported a crowd of just less than 6,200 in the 19,000-seat venue , with few wearing face masks ; eight members of the campaign ’ s advance team have tested positive for Covid-19 .
The president ’ ’ s meandering one-hour-41-minute speech may come to be seen as exhibit A of a campaign struggling for direction and at risk of defeat in November .
He was criticised for taking a scattergun approach to Biden , a reflection of how his team ’ s various @ @ @ @ @ @ @ former vice-president have failed to gain traction .
The remarks also defended Confederate statues and indulged racist terms such as “ Kung flu ” while failing to mention Black Lives Matter or George Floyd , the African American man killed last month by police in Minneapolis whose death sparked nationwide protests .
Polls suggest Trump ’ s unwillingness to strike a chord of national unity alienates voters of colour , suburban women and independents .
Frank Luntz , a pollster and Republican consultant , said : “ He uses words that make his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ warriors ’ appeals to his supporters , but nobody else .
Americans are not looking for a warrior .
They are looking for empathy and understanding and compassion .
If you ’ re looking for a warrior , you ’ ve already decided you want Donald Trump .
If you ’ re looking for social justice , you ’ ve already decided you ’ re voting for Joe Biden .
“ There ’ s only 6 % of the American people that are truly undecided ; 94 % have made up their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your phrases have to be precise .
He keeps talking about law and order .
The public wants public safety .
He talks about draining the swamp .
The public wants a more efficient , more effective and more accountable government .
The words that he ’ s using are actually making his case more difficult because they don ’ t resonate with that 6 % .
” The White House and the Trump campaign , however , denied media reports that Trump had rebuked his staff or that campaign manager Brad Parscale @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and underdelivering so spectacularly .
Kayleigh McEnany , the White House press secretary , insisted on Monday : “ The President was very pleased with the rally .
I was with him .
And I just have to say these media reports that he was somehow furious on the plane – there is no grounding in fact to that.
” She added : “ A political pundit wrote to him that it was one of the all-time great speeches they ’ d ever heard … The speech made his message so clear and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ missed it .
And it was so great to be out of the swamp and in the country .
And those comments are how the president feels , too.
” Tim Murtaugh , the campaign ’ s director of communications , said : “ President Trump is eager to keep hitting the campaign trail and holding more rallies to speak directly to the American people ...
There was a massive media push to crush the Trump rally , and still 12,000 people bravely showed up .
“ This is approximately 11,990 more people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The enthusiasm is with President Trump .
As of Monday morning , more than 11.3 million people had watched the President ’ s speech on our digital platforms .
There is an enthusiasm gap – it is real and it is wide.
” But with Trump under fire for boasting at the rally that he told staff to slow virus testing , Tuesday ’ s stop in Arizona will not be straightforward .
The state ’ s positive test rate is at a seven-day average of more than 20 % , the highest @ @ @ @

Donald Trump flies to Arizona on Tuesday under pressure to change course in his re-election bid after a dismal week culminated in the debacle of thousands of empty seats at a campaign rally.
The US president was reportedly angry on Saturday when his first rally in three months, a defiant gamble amid the coronavirus pandemic intended as a daunting show of force, backfired with poor attendance in Tulsa, Oklahoma, a Republican heartland.
In what amounts to a relaunch of a relaunch, Trump now travels to Arizona, a battleground state, to embrace his most comfortable signature issue with an event marking the 200th mile of his wall on the US-Mexico border (most of the construction has in fact replaced existing barriers).
The president will then speak at a “Students for Trump” event in Phoenix. Despite soaring cases of coronavirus in Arizona, his campaign team will be hoping for an enthusiastic turnout to get back on track. It is not known when Trump will hold his next full rally.
Trump trails his Democratic opponent Joe Biden in numerous polls, both nationally and in competitive states such as Arizona, in some cases by double digits. Observers argue that Tulsa was a warning that he needs to reset, not least because of the health risks of big indoor rallies - but there appears to be little chance of him heeding advice.
“From what I’ve been told, Trump just insists on these rallies and he wants more and not fewer compared to 2016 because he’s got all of the trappings of office and he can fly Air Force One low so people can be awed and all the rest of it,” said Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia.
“Obviously, he didn’t calculate properly for the pandemic and other factors. He thinks they can correct it and go on. He wants one every couple of weeks or more frequently. He didn’t learn a thing. His campaign staff would gladly give them up, along with the tweets, if they could. But they can’t.”
Trump aides claimed that more than a million people had requested tickets for the Tulsa rally. The city fire marshal’s office reported a crowd of just less than 6,200 in the 19,000-seat venue, with few wearing face masks; eight members of the campaign’s advance team have tested positive for Covid-19.
The president’’s meandering one-hour-41-minute speech may come to be seen as exhibit A of a campaign struggling for direction and at risk of defeat in November. He was criticised for taking a scattergun approach to Biden, a reflection of how his team’s various and shifting lines of attack on the former vice-president have failed to gain traction.
The remarks also defended Confederate statues and indulged racist terms such as “Kung flu” while failing to mention Black Lives Matter or George Floyd, the African American man killed last month by police in Minneapolis whose death sparked nationwide protests. Polls suggest Trump’s unwillingness to strike a chord of national unity alienates voters of colour, suburban women and independents.
Frank Luntz, a pollster and Republican consultant, said: “He uses words that make his re-election less likely. Calling his supporters ‘warriors’ appeals to his supporters, but nobody else. Americans are not looking for a warrior. They are looking for empathy and understanding and compassion. If you’re looking for a warrior, you’ve already decided you want Donald Trump. If you’re looking for social justice, you’ve already decided you’re voting for Joe Biden.
“There’s only 6% of the American people that are truly undecided; 94% have made up their minds. That means your words and your phrases have to be precise. He keeps talking about law and order. The public wants public safety. He talks about draining the swamp. The public wants a more efficient, more effective and more accountable government. The words that he’s using are actually making his case more difficult because they don’t resonate with that 6%.”
The White House and the Trump campaign, however, denied media reports that Trump had rebuked his staff or that campaign manager Brad Parscale was skating on thin ice after overpromising and underdelivering so spectacularly.
Kayleigh McEnany, the White House press secretary, insisted on Monday: “The President was very pleased with the rally. I was with him. And I just have to say these media reports that he was somehow furious on the plane – there is no grounding in fact to that.”
She added: “A political pundit wrote to him that it was one of the all-time great speeches they’d ever heard … The speech made his message so clear and compelling that no one could possibly have missed it. And it was so great to be out of the swamp and in the country. And those comments are how the president feels, too.”
Tim Murtaugh, the campaign’s director of communications, said: “President Trump is eager to keep hitting the campaign trail and holding more rallies to speak directly to the American people ... There was a massive media push to crush the Trump rally, and still 12,000 people bravely showed up.
“This is approximately 11,990 more people than attended the last Biden event. The enthusiasm is with President Trump. As of Monday morning, more than 11.3 million people had watched the President’s speech on our digital platforms. There is an enthusiasm gap – it is real and it is wide.”
But with Trump under fire for boasting at the rally that he told staff to slow virus testing, Tuesday’s stop in Arizona will not be straightforward. The state’s positive test rate is at a seven-day average of more than 20%, the highest in the country.


theguardian--2020-06-23--Presidential harassment! Why Trump believes playing the victim will help him win | Arwa Mahdawi

Donald Trump will not go gentle into that good night : he will rage , rage , rage-tweet against the dying of his might .
Indeed , he is already doing so .
After a humiliating turnout at Saturday ’ s rally in Tulsa , Oklahoma – which capped one of the worst weeks of his presidency – Trump ’ s re-election chances look shakier by the day .
Rattled and belligerent , he seems to be gearing up to contest a defeat in November .
“ RIGGED 2020 ELECTION , ” Trump tweeted on Monday morning .
“ MILLIONS @ @ @ @ @ @ @ FOREIGN COUNTRIES , AND OTHERS .
IT WILL BE THE SCANDAL OF OUR TIMES !
” Mercifully , he took his fingers off the caps lock key at that point , but continued to fire off unhinged tweets about his enemies exploiting the pandemic to “ cheat by using Mail-Ins !
” I am sure I don ’ t need to tell you that there is zero evidence of foreign countries colluding to attempt to stuff US ballot boxes .
Nor is there evidence to back up Trump ’ s frequent assertions that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t seem to get in the way of Trump ’ s feelings .
There is nothing Trump loves more than playing the victim .
“ PRESIDENTIAL HARASSMENT !
” he tweeted on Monday .
Along with “ witch hunt ” , “ fake news ” and “ unfair ” , it is one of his favourite phrases .
Trump certainly looks harassed .
A viral video of his “ walk of shame ” after the underwhelming Tulsa rally shows a pathetic figure : his tie is undone and his shoulders are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been going well for poor Donald recently .
Last Thursday , the US supreme court blocked his attempt to rescind one of the Obama administration ’ s signature immigration programmes .
Then , a federal judge refused to block the publication of John Bolton ’ s tell-all memoir , which is highly critical of the president .
Trump ’ s niece is releasing a “ harrowing and salacious ” book about him .
His popularity is at a seven-month low and Joe Biden is leading in the national polls by double-digits .
Even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Breitbart are calling his behaviour “ childish , selfish and self-destructive ” .
If Trump is not re-elected , there is more at stake than a bruised ego ; he could end up in jail .
This may be why William Barr , the attorney general and Trump lapdog , just fired Geoffrey Berman , the US attorney for the southern district of New York , who is conducting investigations into associates of the president .
If Trump loses , he wants a sympathetic prosecutor in New York .
But Trump does not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may be so obsessed with election-rigging is that he is doing his best to rig the election himself .
Earlier this year , the Trump campaign launched a multimillion-dollar legal battle to stop the Democrats making it easier to vote during the pandemic by , for example , expanding mail-in voting .
Trump may be deluded about a lot of things , but he seems to realise that the greater the number of people able to vote , the worse his chance of re-election .
He told the politics site Politico last week @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a second term .
If my wildest dreams come true and Trump loses in November , it is , as his recent tweets make clear , almost inevitable that he will contest the results .
Whether he is able to do this in court rather than just by screaming into the void depends on how close the results are in important states .
“ Close ” is subjective – “ I ’ d guess that Trump would claim ‘ close ’ if the margin is less than 10,000 – no matter the size @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tushnet , a constitutional law expert at Harvard .
But even if he is able to demand a recount , Trump can not barricade himself in the White House for ever .

Donald Trump will not go gentle into that good night: he will rage, rage, rage-tweet against the dying of his might. Indeed, he is already doing so. After a humiliating turnout at Saturday’s rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma – which capped one of the worst weeks of his presidency – Trump’s re-election chances look shakier by the day. Rattled and belligerent, he seems to be gearing up to contest a defeat in November.
“RIGGED 2020 ELECTION,” Trump tweeted on Monday morning. “MILLIONS OF MAIL-IN BALLOTS WILL BE PRINTED BY FOREIGN COUNTRIES, AND OTHERS. IT WILL BE THE SCANDAL OF OUR TIMES!” Mercifully, he took his fingers off the caps lock key at that point, but continued to fire off unhinged tweets about his enemies exploiting the pandemic to “cheat by using Mail-Ins!”
I am sure I don’t need to tell you that there is zero evidence of foreign countries colluding to attempt to stuff US ballot boxes. Nor is there evidence to back up Trump’s frequent assertions that postal voting is corrupt. But facts don’t seem to get in the way of Trump’s feelings. There is nothing Trump loves more than playing the victim. “PRESIDENTIAL HARASSMENT!” he tweeted on Monday. Along with “witch hunt”, “fake news” and “unfair”, it is one of his favourite phrases.
Trump certainly looks harassed. A viral video of his “walk of shame” after the underwhelming Tulsa rally shows a pathetic figure: his tie is undone and his shoulders are sagging. But then things have not been going well for poor Donald recently. Last Thursday, the US supreme court blocked his attempt to rescind one of the Obama administration’s signature immigration programmes. Then, a federal judge refused to block the publication of John Bolton’s tell-all memoir, which is highly critical of the president. Trump’s niece is releasing a “harrowing and salacious” book about him. His popularity is at a seven-month low and Joe Biden is leading in the national polls by double-digits. Even Trump sycophants at rightwing outlets such as Breitbart are calling his behaviour “childish, selfish and self-destructive”.
If Trump is not re-elected, there is more at stake than a bruised ego; he could end up in jail. This may be why William Barr, the attorney general and Trump lapdog, just fired Geoffrey Berman, the US attorney for the southern district of New York, who is conducting investigations into associates of the president. If Trump loses, he wants a sympathetic prosecutor in New York.
But Trump does not plan to lose. One reason he may be so obsessed with election-rigging is that he is doing his best to rig the election himself. Earlier this year, the Trump campaign launched a multimillion-dollar legal battle to stop the Democrats making it easier to vote during the pandemic by, for example, expanding mail-in voting. Trump may be deluded about a lot of things, but he seems to realise that the greater the number of people able to vote, the worse his chance of re-election. He told the politics site Politico last week that losing the lawsuits could cost him a second term.
If my wildest dreams come true and Trump loses in November, it is, as his recent tweets make clear, almost inevitable that he will contest the results. Whether he is able to do this in court rather than just by screaming into the void depends on how close the results are in important states. “Close” is subjective – “I’d guess that Trump would claim ‘close’ if the margin is less than 10,000 – no matter the size of the state,” says Mark Tushnet, a constitutional law expert at Harvard. But even if he is able to demand a recount, Trump cannot barricade himself in the White House for ever.


theguardian--2020-06-23--The venture capitalist with a Silicon Valley solution for minority-owned businesses

On first blush a Silicon Valley venture capitalist might not strike you as the first person to turn to when trying to address the racial wealth divide but these days we should take good ideas where we find them .
Ash Shrivastav works for Buckhill Capital , a Silicon Valley-based private equity and venture capital firm that specializes in investing in early stage and growth companies and real estate such as Elon Musk ’ s SpaceX , a customer-owned banking platform called Good Money as well as apartment communities from New York to Washington State .
Now the Nepal native @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kansas City , Tulsa and Detroit make money too .
Not through grants or government loan programs .
But through the same model that ’ s used by venture capital firms for the mostly white , male-run companies they invest in that are usually located in San Francisco , New York and Chicago .
His solution ?
A venture capital fund he calls the Main Street Capital Fund which is run like any other venture capital fund , but with one little twist : the money comes from the US government .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government to step in and help small businesses , ” he says .
Instead of taking money from large , state-run retirement and pension funds like CalPERS or CalSTRS , Shrivastav envisions setting up a similar fund using taxpayer money from Washington .
The federal government , like any other investor , would be a limited partner of the fund and entitled to investment returns .
The general partner of the fund – the one that makes the decisions and manages the money – would be a non-governmental organization made up of professional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , would need to follow strict rules .
For example , it would only be allowed to invest in certain types of companies – ie minority owned – and only in certain regions that oftentimes get ignored by the mainstream firms .
Educational background and the old school network wouldn ’ t play the role that it usually does .
This way , startups and even growing small businesses owned by Black , Latino and other minority entrepreneurs as well as women-owned firms would get a shot at some much-needed capital to drive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ help their communities and , most importantly , create wealth .
“ We have to focus on what income inequality is doing to this country , ” Shrivastav says .
“ The fix is either you become an employee or you start an enterprise .
The sad part is that venture capital only goes to about 2 % of companies and 98 % of them are typical white and male and with a similar educational and professional background .
Women and minorities are left out.
” Why should the government invest taxpayer money @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The people running the fund do this for a living .
Let ’ s not kid ourselves .
These are capitalists .
They ’ ll still want to see at least two to four times their investment in order to make a profit .
But that ’ s what you want them to do , because whatever is made gets plowed back into the fund and then re-invested in other minority-owned startups .
“ If we don ’ t operate it like a pure capital , market-oriented company then it will not be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reports that he has made progress with his project .
He ’ s written a public letter to Donald Trump and has been encouraged by politicians from both sides of the political aisle as well as , he says , “ very influential people ” in the venture capital community .
But he still has a ways to go .
So why is it so difficult ?
Over the past few decades , non-profits , government agencies and even charities have given grants , low-interest loans and other aid to try to help @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But let ’ s face it : the real money has been made by companies run by mostly non-minorities that received serious financing with serious expectations from serious investors in Silicon Valley .
There ’ s no reason why this same model can ’ t be applied to help minority business owners across the country .
And besides , who would you trust with your tax dollars : some bureaucrat in DC or a profit-hungry capitalist in San Jose ?
My money ’ s with the capitalists .

On first blush a Silicon Valley venture capitalist might not strike you as the first person to turn to when trying to address the racial wealth divide but these days we should take good ideas where we find them.
Ash Shrivastav works for Buckhill Capital, a Silicon Valley-based private equity and venture capital firm that specializes in investing in early stage and growth companies and real estate such as Elon Musk’s SpaceX, a customer-owned banking platform called Good Money as well as apartment communities from New York to Washington State.
Now the Nepal native wants to help minority-owned business owners in Kansas City, Tulsa and Detroit make money too. Not through grants or government loan programs. But through the same model that’s used by venture capital firms for the mostly white, male-run companies they invest in that are usually located in San Francisco, New York and Chicago.
His solution? A venture capital fund he calls the Main Street Capital Fund which is run like any other venture capital fund, but with one little twist: the money comes from the US government. “It’s a simple solution for government to step in and help small businesses,” he says.
Instead of taking money from large, state-run retirement and pension funds like CalPERS or CalSTRS, Shrivastav envisions setting up a similar fund using taxpayer money from Washington. The federal government, like any other investor, would be a limited partner of the fund and entitled to investment returns. The general partner of the fund – the one that makes the decisions and manages the money – would be a non-governmental organization made up of professional fund managers.
That organization, however, would need to follow strict rules.
For example, it would only be allowed to invest in certain types of companies – ie minority owned – and only in certain regions that oftentimes get ignored by the mainstream firms. Educational background and the old school network wouldn’t play the role that it usually does. This way, startups and even growing small businesses owned by Black, Latino and other minority entrepreneurs as well as women-owned firms would get a shot at some much-needed capital to drive their businesses forward, employ people, help their communities and, most importantly, create wealth.
“We have to focus on what income inequality is doing to this country,” Shrivastav says. “The fix is either you become an employee or you start an enterprise. The sad part is that venture capital only goes to about 2% of companies and 98% of them are typical white and male and with a similar educational and professional background. Women and minorities are left out.”
Why should the government invest taxpayer money in such a scheme? Simple. The people running the fund do this for a living. Let’s not kid ourselves. These are capitalists. They’ll still want to see at least two to four times their investment in order to make a profit. But that’s what you want them to do, because whatever is made gets plowed back into the fund and then re-invested in other minority-owned startups.
“If we don’t operate it like a pure capital, market-oriented company then it will not be effective,” he says.
Shrivastav reports that he has made progress with his project. He’s written a public letter to Donald Trump and has been encouraged by politicians from both sides of the political aisle as well as, he says, “very influential people” in the venture capital community. But he still has a ways to go.
So why is it so difficult? Over the past few decades, non-profits, government agencies and even charities have given grants, low-interest loans and other aid to try to help minority owned businesses with modest success. But let’s face it: the real money has been made by companies run by mostly non-minorities that received serious financing with serious expectations from serious investors in Silicon Valley. There’s no reason why this same model can’t be applied to help minority business owners across the country.
And besides, who would you trust with your tax dollars: some bureaucrat in DC or a profit-hungry capitalist in San Jose? My money’s with the capitalists.


theguardian--2020-06-23--Now, more than ever, America must make water a human right | Bernie Sanders and Brenda Lawrence

How can it be that in the midst of a pandemic , children living in the richest country in world history are being poisoned by tap water ?
For decades , our government has put corporate profits ahead of guaranteeing its people the right to clean water .
We have neglected the most basic public investments to keep Americans healthy and safe .
Now , as America battles an unprecedented public health crisis , we can no longer continue along a course in which companies have been allowed to buy up , privatize , and profit off a basic human @ @ @ @ @ @ @ privatization – it is for Congress to end decades of neglect and immediately invest billions into our public water systems so that we can finally guarantee clean drinking water to everybody .
That ’ s why we joined with Representative Ro Khanna to introduce the Water Affordability , Transparency , Equity and Reliability ( Water ) Act .
This comprehensive legislation would provide up to $ 35bn per year to overhaul our water infrastructure across the nation .
Unbelievably , when it comes to water infrastructure , America ’ s challenges resemble those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Society of Civil Engineers gives our drinking water infrastructure a “ D ” grade and our wastewater infrastructure a “ D+ ” .
The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that raw sewage overflows at least 23,000 times each year .
Up to 1.7 million Americans lack access to basic plumbing facilities such as a toilet , tub , shower , or basic running water .
Almost 200,000 households have absolutely no wastewater system .
Up to 10m homes across America get water through lead pipes .
Six years since the start of its water @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clean water .
Meanwhile , in Denmark , South Carolina , families are forced to travel 20 miles each month in order to collect clean drinking water .
Not only do Americans have to deal with poor-quality and often toxic drinking water , we have the “ privilege ” of paying an arm and a leg for it .
Before the coronavirus pandemic hit , nearly 14m households were unable to afford their water bills , whose prices increased more than 40 % since 2010 .
At this rate , more than a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ able to afford their water bills five years from now .
Furthermore , due to the economic meltdown caused by the coronavirus , millions of Americans who don ’ t know where their next paycheck will come from are now at risk of losing their water service .
As public health officials warn that this deadly disease will be with us for quite some time , how are families supposed to wash their hands regularly when their utility company is shutting off their water ?
It should not be a radical idea to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to protect themselves from the coronavirus and other illnesses by practicing good handwashing and hygiene with affordable , clean water in their homes .
Our legislation is designed to ensure that disadvantaged communities – including small , rural , and indigenous communities – receive the funding and assistance they need to cover everybody .
The Water Act would provide grants to households and communities to make repairs to water infrastructure , replace lead service lines and safely filter out toxic compounds from their drinking water .
Under the bill , families who need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ household wells and septic systems .
Schools would also receive up to $ 1bn a year for water infrastructure upgrades to address lead and other water problems .
And this bill helps hold utility companies accountable for engaging in service shutoffs , discrimination , and civil rights violations .
The American people can not afford to wait another day .
Parents should not have to worry that their children will suffer serious developmental problems from drinking lead-contaminated tap water in their homes or schools .
Our people should not be forced to choose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bill .
Given the enormity of this crisis , and how the right to clean water is essential to an effective pandemic response , a comprehensive relief bill must include the Water Act .
The United States of America should not have toxic or unaffordable water .
When people in the world ’ s richest country turn on their taps , the water they drink should be clean .
As we deal with a deadly virus that has killed 120,000 Americans already , handwashing , good sanitation , and safe , hygienic environments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forward together , and demand that Congress finally make the necessary investments in clean water for all Americans , putting human lives ahead of corporate profits .
Our most vulnerable communities depend on it .

How can it be that in the midst of a pandemic, children living in the richest country in world history are being poisoned by tap water? For decades, our government has put corporate profits ahead of guaranteeing its people the right to clean water. We have neglected the most basic public investments to keep Americans healthy and safe. Now, as America battles an unprecedented public health crisis, we can no longer continue along a course in which companies have been allowed to buy up, privatize, and profit off a basic human right. The solution is not more privatization – it is for Congress to end decades of neglect and immediately invest billions into our public water systems so that we can finally guarantee clean drinking water to everybody.
That’s why we joined with Representative Ro Khanna to introduce the Water Affordability, Transparency, Equity and Reliability (Water) Act. This comprehensive legislation would provide up to $35bn per year to overhaul our water infrastructure across the nation.
Unbelievably, when it comes to water infrastructure, America’s challenges resemble those of a developing country. The American Society of Civil Engineers gives our drinking water infrastructure a “D” grade and our wastewater infrastructure a “D+”. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that raw sewage overflows at least 23,000 times each year. Up to 1.7 million Americans lack access to basic plumbing facilities such as a toilet, tub, shower, or basic running water. Almost 200,000 households have absolutely no wastewater system. Up to 10m homes across America get water through lead pipes. Six years since the start of its water crisis, Flint still does not have clean water. Meanwhile, in Denmark, South Carolina, families are forced to travel 20 miles each month in order to collect clean drinking water.
Up to 1.7 million Americans lack access to basic plumbing facilities such as a toilet, tub, shower, or basic running water
Not only do Americans have to deal with poor-quality and often toxic drinking water, we have the “privilege” of paying an arm and a leg for it. Before the coronavirus pandemic hit, nearly 14m households were unable to afford their water bills, whose prices increased more than 40% since 2010. At this rate, more than a third of American households may not be able to afford their water bills five years from now. Furthermore, due to the economic meltdown caused by the coronavirus, millions of Americans who don’t know where their next paycheck will come from are now at risk of losing their water service. As public health officials warn that this deadly disease will be with us for quite some time, how are families supposed to wash their hands regularly when their utility company is shutting off their water?
It should not be a radical idea to say that all families should be able to protect themselves from the coronavirus and other illnesses by practicing good handwashing and hygiene with affordable, clean water in their homes. Our legislation is designed to ensure that disadvantaged communities – including small, rural, and indigenous communities – receive the funding and assistance they need to cover everybody. The Water Act would provide grants to households and communities to make repairs to water infrastructure, replace lead service lines and safely filter out toxic compounds from their drinking water. Under the bill, families who need help could get grants for upgrades to household wells and septic systems. Schools would also receive up to $1bn a year for water infrastructure upgrades to address lead and other water problems. And this bill helps hold utility companies accountable for engaging in service shutoffs, discrimination, and civil rights violations.
The American people cannot afford to wait another day. Parents should not have to worry that their children will suffer serious developmental problems from drinking lead-contaminated tap water in their homes or schools. Our people should not be forced to choose between paying for food or the water bill. Given the enormity of this crisis, and how the right to clean water is essential to an effective pandemic response, a comprehensive relief bill must include the Water Act.
The United States of America should not have toxic or unaffordable water. When people in the world’s richest country turn on their taps, the water they drink should be clean. As we deal with a deadly virus that has killed 120,000 Americans already, handwashing, good sanitation, and safe, hygienic environments are not optional. Let us go forward together, and demand that Congress finally make the necessary investments in clean water for all Americans, putting human lives ahead of corporate profits. Our most vulnerable communities depend on it.


theguardian--2020-06-22--'This is a war': Republicans ramp up bid to control election maps for next decade

A little-known Republican group is ramping up millions of dollars in funding from major US corporations such as CitiGroup and Chevron to protect the conservative stronghold on the country .
The Republican State Leadership Committee ( RSLC ) – which held the key to the GOP ’ s political takeover a decade ago – launched the Right Lines 2020 campaign last September , taglined : “ Socialism starts in the states .
Let ’ s stop it there , too.
” It ’ s hoping to meet a $ 125m investment goal in an effort to retain 42 state legislature @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to holding power in the House of Representatives in battleground states including Wisconsin , Texas , Florida and New York .
“ There ’ s a decade of power and a decade of dominance that ’ s truly on the line , ” RSLC president Austin Chambers , a 24-year-old Republican operative , told Sean Spicer on his Newsmax show in March .
The group recently appointed party strategist Karl Rove and ousted White House chief of staff Reince Priebus to its board .
Ahead of November ’ s election , Republicans face @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump , with dark money pouring in on both sides , and consumers who are significantly more vocal and critical of corporations ’ politics , especially in the wake of Citizens United .
But this year ’ s election also coincides with the decennial census , from which demographic data helps determine the number of seats in the House .
The state legislatures elected this fall will be in charge of drawing almost all the maps .
The RSLC ’ s goal is to get Republicans elected in down-ballot races .
This can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including attack ads .
For corporations , funneling their money through the group is a simple way to support lawmakers sympathetic to their bottom line and exert political influence .
The RSLC has gone to extreme lengths to undertake its mission , changing the political landscape in the process .
In the run-up to the 2010 midterms , it led an unprecedented strategy , the Redistricting Majority Project , or Redmap , to flip legislatures in competitive states .
Once in charge , Republicans manipulated district maps to their advantage , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who controls redistricting can control Congress , ” Rove famously said in 2010 .
In 2012 , Democrats won 1.4m more votes than Republicans , yet Republicans maintained a 33-seat margin in the House .
A 2019 USC study found that 59 million Americans now live under minority rule , where the party that receives the minority share of the vote in a state election controls the majority of seats in the subsequent state legislature .
While both Democrats and Republicans gerrymander , Redmap changed the game .
Over half of the RSLC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ end of 2019 came from public companies and trade associations , according to an analysis by The Center for Political Accountability ( CPA ) , which tracks corporate political spending .
The largest single donor , however , was the conservative dark money group the Judicial Confirmation Network with $ 1.1m , the same group behind the nomination of conservative supreme court justice Brett Kavanaugh .
Despite the huge amount of financial support , the RSLC spends relatively little to accomplish their goal , doling out roughly $ 1m per state in its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ money towards groups on the ground that support candidates , or towards independent expenditures , including mailers , robocalls and digital and TV spots – which often veer into attack ads .
“ The money doesn ’ t go out broadly , ” said Bruce Freed , CPA president .
“ It goes to specific states that they see as targets of opportunity .
And so the company that contributes has much greater bang for the buck.
” In the recent Wisconsin election , the RSLC spent over $ 800,000 on TV ads @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her as soft on sex offenders .
She unsuccessfully tried to block the ads , and later won the state supreme court seat .
Justice Courtney Goodson also sued the RSLC in 2018 when she ran to defend her seat on the Arkansas state supreme court .
The RSLC paid for a 15-second spot and mailers lambasting contributions she had received from a friend of her attorney husband , who had been a top donor to her first state supreme court campaign before they married .
But experts said the RSLC and its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fly under the radar .
Once an arcane process , gerrymandering is now a contentious issue battled by grassroots movements .
“ Redistricting historically was something that occurred behind the scenes in smoke-filled rooms and the people didn ’ t pay attention , ” said Michael Li , senior counsel at the Brennan Center .
“ Now it ’ s something that angers people.
” Rigged maps and their corrosive effects on democracy have drawn fierce protests in states like Wisconsin and Michigan over the past decade .
Crowds came out once again @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s influential ruling drawing a line between political and racial gerrymandering , putting even more pressure on the parties to win control of the redistricting process .
Consumers are also more concerned with corporate politics than they were a decade ago .
Think of grocery store chain Publix , which suspended political contributions after Parkland high school students staged protests in their stores over unprecedented donations to gubernatorial candidate Adam Putnam , a self-professed “ proud NRA sellout ” .
RSLC contributors Citigroup , Chevron , and Dominion Energy are one of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Black Lives Matter protests , though not always directly .
Altria and Dominion Energy have both pledged $ 5m to fight “ racial and social inequality ” .
But these words can ring hollow .
“ They can look moderate or woke to the public , even though they don ’ t spend their money to pursue those issues politically the same way they pursue their narrower [ interests ] , ” said Jake Grumbach , an assistant professor of political science at the University of Washington .
The Guardian reached out to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ donors in 2019 , most of which disclose their political contributions on their websites .
Chevron , Dominion and Reynolds all replied that companies contribute in a bipartisan , transparent manner according to their business interests , and declined to answer questions about Redmap .
Altria and BNSF did not comment .
Ultimately , Freed said , companies don ’ t consider the consequences of their political spending .
“ Corporations either turned a blind eye or they didn ’ t pay attention , but they ’ re responsible through their spending.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee , raised only a third as much as the RSLC in 2010 , the two groups are virtually neck-and-neck so far in the 2020 election cycle .
“ Democrats were asleep at the wheel in 2010 , ” Li said .
“ Increasingly [ they ] understand that they need to at least get a blocking position if not control redistricting.
” Former attorney general Eric Holder has launched the National Democratic Redistricting Committee ( NRDC ) , backed by Barack Obama and largely funded by the Pacs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and shored up by large contributions from leading labor unions .
Dave Abrams , the RSLC deputy executive director , called the Democrats ’ pledge to stop partisan gerrymandering “ flat bullshit ” , and said the RSLC and its supporters were leading the fight against “ radical leftists ” .
But the two sides ’ strategies aren ’ t exactly the same , said David Daley , who wrote Ratfucked , a book on gerrymandering .
“ The Republican strategy in 2010 was based on winning trifecta control in all of these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an inexpensive loophole.
” While Democrats have been trying to claw back power , “ it ’ s not about taking complete control of these parties and then drawing themselves in ” , Daley said .
“ They ’ re too far behind to even think about that.
” Republicans may not be able to hold onto their seats this time .
In 2019 , the NRDC , Holder ’ s organization , hit its targets in Kentucky , Virginia , and Louisiana – save for flipping the Louisiana state Senate .
Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wisconsin ’ s conservative-controlled state supreme court election in April .
“ Everybody understands this is a war that has real consequences and you ’ ve got one shot at it , ” Li said .
“ It ’ s not like we can come back and do this two years like this ; this is your moment , and if you ’ re going to influence what the maps look like , and who ’ s in power for the next decade .
”

A little-known Republican group is ramping up millions of dollars in funding from major US corporations such as CitiGroup and Chevron to protect the conservative stronghold on the country.
The Republican State Leadership Committee (RSLC) – which held the key to the GOP’s political takeover a decade ago – launched the Right Lines 2020 campaign last September, taglined: “Socialism starts in the states. Let’s stop it there, too.” It’s hoping to meet a $125m investment goal in an effort to retain 42 state legislature seats that the group says are key to holding power in the House of Representatives in battleground states including Wisconsin, Texas, Florida and New York.
“There’s a decade of power and a decade of dominance that’s truly on the line,” RSLC president Austin Chambers, a 24-year-old Republican operative, told Sean Spicer on his Newsmax show in March. The group recently appointed party strategist Karl Rove and ousted White House chief of staff Reince Priebus to its board.
Ahead of November’s election, Republicans face an intense Democratic challenge to unseat Donald Trump, with dark money pouring in on both sides, and consumers who are significantly more vocal and critical of corporations’ politics, especially in the wake of Citizens United. But this year’s election also coincides with the decennial census, from which demographic data helps determine the number of seats in the House. The state legislatures elected this fall will be in charge of drawing almost all the maps.
The RSLC’s goal is to get Republicans elected in down-ballot races. This can mean funding state candidates and campaign materials, including attack ads. For corporations, funneling their money through the group is a simple way to support lawmakers sympathetic to their bottom line and exert political influence.
The RSLC has gone to extreme lengths to undertake its mission, changing the political landscape in the process. In the run-up to the 2010 midterms, it led an unprecedented strategy, the Redistricting Majority Project, or Redmap, to flip legislatures in competitive states. Once in charge, Republicans manipulated district maps to their advantage, a tactic known as gerrymandering. “He who controls redistricting can control Congress,” Rove famously said in 2010.
In 2012, Democrats won 1.4m more votes than Republicans, yet Republicans maintained a 33-seat margin in the House. A 2019 USC study found that 59 million Americans now live under minority rule, where the party that receives the minority share of the vote in a state election controls the majority of seats in the subsequent state legislature. While both Democrats and Republicans gerrymander, Redmap changed the game.
Over half of the RSLC’s $17m contributions at the end of 2019 came from public companies and trade associations, according to an analysis by The Center for Political Accountability (CPA), which tracks corporate political spending. The largest single donor, however, was the conservative dark money group the Judicial Confirmation Network with $1.1m, the same group behind the nomination of conservative supreme court justice Brett Kavanaugh.
Despite the huge amount of financial support, the RSLC spends relatively little to accomplish their goal, doling out roughly $1m per state in its 2010 coup. The RSLC funnels the money towards groups on the ground that support candidates, or towards independent expenditures, including mailers, robocalls and digital and TV spots – which often veer into attack ads.
“The money doesn’t go out broadly,” said Bruce Freed, CPA president. “It goes to specific states that they see as targets of opportunity. And so the company that contributes has much greater bang for the buck.”
In the recent Wisconsin election, the RSLC spent over $800,000 on TV ads against judge Jill Karofsky attempting to portray her as soft on sex offenders. She unsuccessfully tried to block the ads, and later won the state supreme court seat. Justice Courtney Goodson also sued the RSLC in 2018 when she ran to defend her seat on the Arkansas state supreme court. The RSLC paid for a 15-second spot and mailers lambasting contributions she had received from a friend of her attorney husband, who had been a top donor to her first state supreme court campaign before they married.
But experts said the RSLC and its donors may no longer be able to fly under the radar. Once an arcane process, gerrymandering is now a contentious issue battled by grassroots movements. “Redistricting historically was something that occurred behind the scenes in smoke-filled rooms and the people didn’t pay attention,” said Michael Li, senior counsel at the Brennan Center. “Now it’s something that angers people.”
Rigged maps and their corrosive effects on democracy have drawn fierce protests in states like Wisconsin and Michigan over the past decade. Crowds came out once again last year after the supreme court’s influential ruling drawing a line between political and racial gerrymandering, putting even more pressure on the parties to win control of the redistricting process.
Consumers are also more concerned with corporate politics than they were a decade ago. Think of grocery store chain Publix, which suspended political contributions after Parkland high school students staged protests in their stores over unprecedented donations to gubernatorial candidate Adam Putnam, a self-professed “proud NRA sellout”.
RSLC contributors Citigroup, Chevron, and Dominion Energy are one of a number of companies aligning themselves with the Black Lives Matter protests, though not always directly. Altria and Dominion Energy have both pledged $5m to fight “racial and social inequality”. But these words can ring hollow.
“They can look moderate or woke to the public, even though they don’t spend their money to pursue those issues politically the same way they pursue their narrower [interests],” said Jake Grumbach, an assistant professor of political science at the University of Washington.
The Guardian reached out to the RSLC’s top five corporate donors in 2019, most of which disclose their political contributions on their websites. Chevron, Dominion and Reynolds all replied that companies contribute in a bipartisan, transparent manner according to their business interests, and declined to answer questions about Redmap. Altria and BNSF did not comment. Ultimately, Freed said, companies don’t consider the consequences of their political spending. “Corporations either turned a blind eye or they didn’t pay attention, but they’re responsible through their spending.”
While the RSLC’s counterpart, the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, raised only a third as much as the RSLC in 2010, the two groups are virtually neck-and-neck so far in the 2020 election cycle. “Democrats were asleep at the wheel in 2010,” Li said. “Increasingly [they] understand that they need to at least get a blocking position if not control redistricting.”
Former attorney general Eric Holder has launched the National Democratic Redistricting Committee (NRDC), backed by Barack Obama and largely funded by the Pacs of George Soros and Donald Sussman, and shored up by large contributions from leading labor unions.
Dave Abrams, the RSLC deputy executive director, called the Democrats’ pledge to stop partisan gerrymandering “flat bullshit”, and said the RSLC and its supporters were leading the fight against “radical leftists”.
But the two sides’ strategies aren’t exactly the same, said David Daley, who wrote Ratfucked, a book on gerrymandering. “The Republican strategy in 2010 was based on winning trifecta control in all of these states, recognizing that state legislatures represented an inexpensive loophole.” While Democrats have been trying to claw back power, “it’s not about taking complete control of these parties and then drawing themselves in”, Daley said. “They’re too far behind to even think about that.”
Republicans may not be able to hold onto their seats this time. In 2019, the NRDC, Holder’s organization, hit its targets in Kentucky, Virginia, and Louisiana – save for flipping the Louisiana state Senate. Democrats also won Karofsky’s seat on Wisconsin’s conservative-controlled state supreme court election in April.
“Everybody understands this is a war that has real consequences and you’ve got one shot at it,” Li said. “It’s not like we can come back and do this two years like this; this is your moment, and if you’re going to influence what the maps look like, and who’s in power for the next decade.”