truthout--2020-12-09--Some Countries May Not Have COVID Vaccine Until 2022 as Richer Ones Hoard Supply

While the United States , Britain and other wealthy countries race to vaccinate their populations against the coronavirus , a new report finds that as much as 90 % of the population in dozens of poorer countries could be forced to wait until at least 2022 because wealthy countries are hoarding so much of the vaccine supply .
A growing movement is calling for the development of a people ’ s vaccine and the suspension of intellectual property rights to expand access .
We speak with Dr. Mohga Kamal-Yanni , a policy adviser to the People ’ s Vaccine Alliance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health advocate and coordinator of the AccessIBSA project , which campaigns for access to medicines in India , Brazil and South Africa .
This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : President-elect Joe Biden pledged Tuesday to distribute 100 million vaccine shots in the first 100 days of his administration .
Biden ’ s vow came on the same day Britain began a mass vaccination program using a vaccine developed by Pfizer-BioNTech .
The vaccine is expected to be soon approved in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ early as tomorrow .
On Tuesday , President Trump held what he called a vaccine summit at the White House .
Trump claimed COVID deaths and hospitalizations would quickly decrease , but the White House Coronavirus Task Force is warning the spread of COVID would not be reduced until the spring , based on current vaccination plans .
A report by the task force obtained by CNN states , quote , “ The current vaccine implementation will not substantially reduce viral spread , hospitalizations , or fatalities until the 100 million Americans with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will take until the late spring , ” unquote .
Meanwhile , a new report finds as many as nine out of 10 people in dozens of poorer countries could miss out on the coronavirus vaccine until at least 2022 , because wealthy countries , including the United States , have hoarded enough doses to vaccinate their entire populations nearly three times over .
The report was issued by the People ’ s Vaccine Alliance , which includes Amnesty International , Frontline AIDS , Global Justice Now and Oxfam .
This is Winifred @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a video produced by the People ’ s Vaccine Alliance .
AMY GOODMAN : That was the UNAIDS executive director , part of the People ’ s Vaccine Alliance .
The World Health Organization has also warned about the inequitable distribution of the vaccine .
This is WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus .
AMY GOODMAN : We ’ re joined right now by two guests .
In Oxford , England , Dr. Mohga Kamal-Yanni .
She is policy adviser to the People ’ s Vaccine Alliance and to UNAIDS , the joint @ @ @ @ @ @ @ She has worked for decades on access to medicines and healthcare in developing countries .
And in Bangalore , India , Achal Prabhala is with us , coordinator of the AccessIBSA project , which campaigns for access to medicines in India , Brazil and South Africa .
He recently co-authored an op-ed published in The New York Times headlined “ Want Vaccines Fast ?
Suspend Intellectual Property Rights.
” We ’ re going to begin with the doctor , Dr. Mohga Kamal-Yanni .
You ’ re in Oxford , actually , where one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and that is AstraZeneca-Oxford .
But start off by talking about what is a people ’ s vaccine and what are the inequities right now .
Who will get this vaccine , what countries , and what countries won ’ t ?
DR. MOHGA KAMAL–YANNI : Well , the People ’ s Vaccine is a coalition of organizations like Amnesty , Frontline AIDS , Global Justice , Oxfam .
It ’ s co-led by Oxfam and UNAIDS .
And it has so many people , you know , academics , health activists , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , from all over the world , united for one aim , which has a people ’ s vaccine , not a profit vaccine .
So we want a vaccine — basically , we ’ re calling for vaccination that is available for all people at risk , and then for everybody once we have enough doses , but not the way it ’ s happening now , where if you happen to be born in a rich country , you get the vaccine ; if you happen to be born in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And yesterday in the U.K. , they started vaccinating older people , and there was some clapping .
And , you know , it was a lot of joy .
And , of course , it ’ s brilliant , you know , that there is hope that this problem that we ’ re all suffering from will be — you know , there ’ s a light at the end of the tunnel .
However , that joy is only limited to people living here .
I ’ ve got friends @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with in other countries , in developing countries , who are saying , “ Yeah , and what about us ?
” And yeah , what about them ?
So , this is really a big problem .
There ’ s just so many — it ’ s kind of dividing the world between those who have and can pay and those who don ’ t and can ’ t pay , and , therefore , well , you can stand in the back on the queue ; we don ’ t know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And that is just not right .
It ’ s not right on moral grounds .
It ’ s not right on public health grounds , because everybody is saying , “ Nobody is safe until everybody is safe.
” Yeah , OK. How do you make everybody safe ?
So , a vaccine nationalism will not get you to everybody safe .
And also , on economic ground , you ’ re not going to get the economy growing , if just one — or back to normal , if one country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the world isn ’ t .
You can ’ t trade with people who are sick or people who have a high level of infections .
So , you know , it just doesn ’ t make sense at all .
The other important point is that this is not kind of fact of life that , oh , we have limited amount of vaccines .
Actually , that ’ s not the case .
There are other options that will enable the world to produce more vaccines , and therefore vaccinate more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s happening now , if you can imagine that we have a small pie — so that ’ s one vaccine , a small pie .
And so , basically , the rich can have the bigger share of it , and then we ’ ll have just crumbs left for developing countries .
Well , the idea is that : Well , why don ’ t we increase supply so everybody can have a decent share of it , rather than fighting on a little one ?
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : Well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ask you about the AstraZeneca-Oxford vaccine and how access to that vaccine may be more equitable at this stage .
Could you talk about some of the agreements that the AstraZeneca has reached with the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations and Gavi , the Vaccine Alliance ?
DR. MOHGA KAMAL–YANNI : Well , basically , I mean , this vaccine has been developed by Oxford University .
Oxford University has a standard on managing intellectual property .
And it actually talks about open license .
However , when they did the deal or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exclusive license for AstraZeneca .
But they managed to put some conditions in the contract about making the vaccine accessible to developing countries .
So , AstraZeneca went to one of the big vaccine producers in India , the Serum Institute , and made an agreement to produce 1 billion doses , so that ’ s vaccinating 500 million people .
Half of them will be in India .
So , it ’ s a good way — you know , good start to make more vaccines available .
They also — AstraZeneca @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , like with Argentina and Brazil , so that may cover a number of people in Latin America .
But what about the rest of the population ?
There are some other deals with countries , but not production as such .
You know , you can ’ t leave — you know , so , AstraZeneca , compared to others , yes , they ’ ve done good things and also fixing the price as — well , AstraZeneca said $ 4 per dose , and Serum said $ 3 per dose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be probably $ 3 per dose , so $ 6 per course or per person .
But the thing is , you can ’ t leave — this is the whole — you can ’ t leave the decision on supply , price , which country , which patient , to companies .
That ’ s not their job .
Their job is to produce .
And the job of governments is to make more production , so you have to enable other producers .
Like in India , there ’ s other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ producers .
So , if you allow technology transfer , so sharing technology — which the technology , by the way , a lot of it has been developed by public money , including from the U.S. and the U.K. and Europe and other countries .
So , allowing the sharing of technology and removing the intellectual property barrier , so no patents on vaccines , then other companies can produce the vaccine , and we have more .
And just like AstraZeneca did this contract with Serum , that includes , presumably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ transfer , that can be done on a multilateral level , on a bigger level for more companies .
Because all these deals , by the way , they ’ re all secret .
You don ’ t know what ’ s in it except what they announce , rather than if you have a multilateral agreement , you don ’ t — you know , the negotiation happens in closed doors , but then , once they agree a license , then it ’ s public .
Then you see what ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about it .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : And what about the whole issue that many developing countries are relying on the possibility of an effective vaccine coming from China ?
And China , obviously , is in last-stage clinical trials for several vaccines .
The potential for China being the one that supplies the bulk of the vaccines to the majority of the people of the planet , what that would mean in terms of international relations in the future ?
DR. MOHGA KAMAL–YANNI : Well , I mean , China has four vaccines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the Emirates today announced that one of these vaccines passed clinical trials , and they authorized it to work in their country .
They were convinced with the safety and efficacy of the clinical trials .
So , yes , if developing countries have nothing coming , you know , they can ’ t just sit — and I heard from a number of countries : “ We ’ re not going to sit and wait.
” So they are talking to companies in Europe and in America , but they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And the king of Morocco said that he ’ s going to vaccinate his people , and they ’ re aiming at vaccinating 80 % of the population .
And again , they have an agreement with a Chinese company .
You know , that put the pressure on ensuring that these vaccines have high efficacy and high safety level , or , you know , at least acceptable safety level .
And the thing is , we need that all clinical trials get published , whether that ’ s from China @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s no good that companies announce their results in a press release to investors , so they have more — you know , their share value and their market value increase , but scientists , who are waiting , who understand these things , can not investigate or review the results because there ’ s nothing published for them .
So , we need more of transparency on that , including the Chinese , so that countries are aware of what they ’ re buying .
AMY GOODMAN : I wanted to bring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , coordinator of AccessIBSA project , which campaigns to access medicines for India , Brazil , South Africa .
This piece you recently wrote in The New York Times , “ Want Vaccines Fast ?
Suspend Intellectual Property Rights.
” You ’ re joining us from Bangalore , India .
Can you talk about what that would mean , if you suspended intellectual property rights ?
Talk about trade secrets .
Talk about patents .
Talk about government subsidies of these private companies .
And how does what ’ s happening now , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to people ’ s access , for example , to the flu vaccine , how that was developed and financed ?
ACHAL PRABHALA : Thank you , Amy , firstly .
It ’ s great to be here .
And thank you for having me .
The piece that we wrote in The New York Times was geared around an event that ’ s unfolding this week and the next .
It doesn ’ t look like it will get resolved anytime soon or successfully , but that event is a proposal that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ WTO , at the World Trade Organization , to temporarily suspend a trade rule called TRIPS , which is an agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual property , the supergovernance of intellectual property worldwide , which the WTO takes up .
And the reason India and South Africa suggested that all member countries of the WTO should be exempted from provisions of TRIPS is so that everything that we require to survive the pandemic — the masks , the test kits , but now especially the vaccines — should be free to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to get them faster and cheaper to as many people as we can around the world .
There is an overwhelming support from developing countries for this proposal , but the WTO works on consensus , which means that even if five or six very rich countries oppose the proposal , it actually won ’ t pass .
And that ’ s exactly what ’ s happening .
The U.S. , the EU , the U.K. and a few other rich countries , as well as , inexplicably , Brazil , have opposed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which means that it ’ s unlikely to go through without a fight .
Now , the irony of the fight having to take place this week is there ’ s really good news out of the U.K.
There ’ s also really good news out of science .
And personally for me , sitting in India , I wish I could share in that good news with the same spirit of cheer and celebration .
I saw a moving interview with a 91-year-old called Martin Kenyon in London , who called his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I heard you had vaccines.
” They said , “ Yes , come on over and get one.
” He walked over , and he got a Pfizer vaccine , the first dose of a Pfizer vaccine .
And he ’ s looking forward to hugging his grandchildren this Christmas .
And it ’ s a beautiful , touching story .
The problem with that is , that Pfizer vaccine , over 90 % of its supplies , until the end of 2021 — so that means for the next 13 months — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of rich countries , to the U.S. , to the EU and to the U.K.
There ’ s actually no way that anyone in India or anyone anywhere outside these rich countries is going to get their hands on one of these vaccines for love or for money .
They just don ’ t exist outside of very few number of rich countries .
That ’ s kind of amazing to live through in 2020 .
I ’ ve been campaigning for access to medicines for a long time .
But my father @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years old .
My mother is 72 years old .
I definitely would like them to have a vaccine and get one fairly quickly .
The prospect of these vaccines being unrolled without any possibility of a majority of the world getting them is genuinely heartbreaking .
And that ’ s the anger that partly prompted that piece .
The irony , of course , is that this is such a dramatically different situation from the 1950s when the flu [ sic ] vaccine was developed by Jonas Salk , who , of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Ed Morrow about whether he was going to patent his invention — he said , “ Hahaha , can you patent the sun ?
” And it ’ s a heartbreak — it ’ s a beautiful — it ’ s a beautiful moment .
It ’ s a really beautiful moment .
And — AMY GOODMAN : And that was about the polio vaccine .
ACHAL PRABHALA : I ’ m sorry , that was about the polio vaccine .
That ’ s exactly right .
And that ’ s about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jonas Salk , however , does continue with the flu vaccine that we all take .
That flu vaccine is developed at a unit of the WHO , which it ’ s called informally the Flu Network , and formally the Global Influenza Surveillance and Research Systems .
It ’ s a collaborative infrastructure that they ’ ve set up at the WHO that involves 110 different countries , 130 different laboratories , which pool information on what strains of influenza are circulating in their countries .
That information is collated .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seasons , in the Northern Hemisphere and the Southern Hemisphere , the WHO then releases what would be called the formula for the flu vaccine , which then anyone anywhere can produce , because it ’ s completely free of any proprietary intellectual property or monopoly , which means that billions of people have taken it since the 1970s based on this cooperative , shared system of pooling knowledge , as well as finances .
And that ’ s created a very robust infrastructure for the production and consumption of these flu vaccines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ success .
It ’ s , unfortunately , exactly the kind of thing that ’ s not being replicated with the coronavirus vaccines .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : Well , Achal Prabhala , I wanted to ask you : In terms of the refusal of these handful of rich countries to allow the suspension of intellectual property rights at the WTO , what is their argument ?
Given the enormous worldwide crisis that we ’ re functioning , how do they defend this ?
And what could possibly be done to overcome this resistance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s an excellent question .
And look , I think , in some way , I ’ ve been debating several people on this just this week , after The New York Times piece came out , as well as previously , because of my work .
I wish , actually , sometimes that people would be honest and upfront and say , “ Look , we actually care about these corporations more than global human life .
We ’ re actually fine with a certain number of usually poor people dying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vaccines , as long as the companies and the industry that makes them survives.
” I ’ d be willing to listen to that argument , because it at least would be honest .
What happens instead is that the arguments that are advanced are , A , that it ’ s not a problem .
To say that it ’ s not a problem ignores 20 years of human history , where millions of people died because of lack of access to monopoly drugs for AIDS , and then did so again @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cancer , and then did so again for lack of access to hepatitis C drugs , and , by the way , are doing today in the United States for lack of access to insulin , which is , again , patented , for lack of access to PrEP for AIDS , or for a lack of access to cystic fibrosis drugs in the U.K .
So , it ’ s to deny reality .
But the logic that ’ s advanced is that the innovation system requires these monopolies to exist in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taking big risks with private money — except for the fact that that ’ s not what ’ s happening here .
It ’ s never happened , but it ’ s never happened as starkly as it is not happening in the pandemic .
Moderna , which is just one of the vaccines that posted successful results a couple of weeks ago , has admitted , by its own — in its own financial reports , that 100 % of its vaccine development project was funded by BARDA , by Warp Speed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ money .
On top of that , it ’ s been given preorders of another one-and-a-half billion from the United States and another substantial amount of money , nearing about a billion , from the European Union .
Every other vaccine , from Pfizer to AstraZeneca , also has substantial government money .
German taxpayer money of up to $ 445 million went into the Pfizer vaccine .
AstraZeneca received huge subsidies through public money from the United Kingdom through its early development at Oxford University .
All of these vaccines have , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very lucrative , very large preorders .
Now , you can ’ t have it all ways .
You can not have a vaccine project literally contracted out — I hesitate to say “ subsidy , ” because when it ’ s 100 % of the cost , that ’ s not a subsidy , that ’ s ownership .
You can not have a price like a preorder of $ 6 billion , which is basically what Pfizer has awaiting it on successful completion of its trials and approval , and , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ But we also need the intellectual property monopoly because of all this private capital we ’ ve risked , ” which doesn ’ t seem to actually exist .
It is very , very strange , but this is the argument that ’ s being advanced , and it doesn ’ t hold water .
I think they understand that , as well .
It ’ s just that this argument has a rich history .
It ’ s embedded in a particular kind of thinking , a particular branch of economics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ride on and , in effect , lie their way through opposing what is really a very sensible and unradical proposal made by South Africa and India at the WTO .
AMY GOODMAN : So , finally , how exactly — summing up in a minute , if you got around trade secrets , if the companies were forced to release their trade secrets , they didn ’ t get patents on this , how would a people ’ s vaccine work ?
Every company all over could just develop the vaccine where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , President Trump signs some executive order , not clear how enforceable it is , called “ America First.
” We have learned , if you ’ re altruistic or not , if someone is sick somewhere in the world , you are in danger .
So , this is — everyone is in this together .
But what would a people ’ s vaccine — how would it happen ?
ACHAL PRABHALA : What it requires is , firstly , for companies to say , “ There are two aspects of our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We will share with you our patents , and we ’ ll share with you our trade secrets.
” Trade secrets are the know-how and the technology that ’ s required to make a vaccine .
It ’ s a very important part of the process .
If they were to say , “ Look , we ’ ll license this to any company with a reputation and a quality certification that ’ s willing to make this vaccine with us , ” then let ’ s open it up , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it .
And if they did that , they would suddenly find that there are whole avenues of supply that open up around the world .
There are over 20 vaccine manufacturers in India , but there are also eight vaccine manufacturers on the continent of Africa .
And there are a number of ways in which you can do this collaboratively .
The one way not to do it is the way that they are , by producing these artificially limited quantities of these vaccines by sort of keeping it all to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wanted to ask Dr. Kamal-Yanni again about the situation with — the Trump administration had removed the United States from the World Health Organization .
President-elect Biden is now saying he will return the U.S. to the WHO .
What do you think has been the impact of the United States pulling out of the WHO in the midst of this pandemic ?
DR. MOHGA KAMAL–YANNI : Well , I mean , what do you say about such an amazing , really incredible , irresponsible , I ’ m afraid , decision in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ?
I mean , it ’ s a strange decision even if we ’ re not in a pandemic .
So what do you think if we are in the middle of it ?
It ’ s really , really not very good .
My dream , to be honest , as a non-American , about your election , is to retain two things : one , the American role in advancing global health , and particularly in joining the WHO , and also , you know , putting science before politics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very problematic from the U.S .
It really affected not just decision makers in other countries , but also ordinary people .
This ignoring the science behind COVID was really , really bad .
So , we do hope that the new administration — I mean , they made commitment — Biden made a commitment to join the WHO .
That is fantastic .
The sooner , the better , you know ?
That would be great , but also for the U.S. to join something like or to voice public support for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ WHO and other countries co-sponsored to do the facilitation of licensing intellectual property and — so , managing intellectual property — you know , your previous question — but also facilitating technology transfer to other companies .
So , supporting the C-TAP would be absolutely fantastic .
For the U.S. new administration , I mean , it ’ s not in — it wouldn ’ t catch that December meeting that my colleague was talking about , but , in general , playing a positive role in the WTO in putting public health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not saying companies don ’ t make profit .
We ’ re not saying that at all .
But we ’ re saying that public health comes before profit , which is , by the way , something that all the World Trade Organization members agreed on in Doha in 2001 .
So , it — AMY GOODMAN : Dr. Mohga Kamal — we want to thank so much for being with us , Dr. Mohga Kamal-Yanni , People ’ s Vaccine Alliance and UNAIDS .
And thank you to Achal Prabhala , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Times headlined piece , that we will link to , “ Want Vaccines Fast ?
Suspend Intellectual Property Rights.
” He ’ s speaking to us from Bangalore , and the doctor is speaking to us from Oxford , England .
When we come back , we look at why former jurors and even a prosecutor are speaking out against the federal execution of an African American man , Brandon Bernard , scheduled to die Thursday — on International Human Rights Day .
Stay with us .

While the United States, Britain and other wealthy countries race to vaccinate their populations against the coronavirus, a new report finds that as much as 90% of the population in dozens of poorer countries could be forced to wait until at least 2022 because wealthy countries are hoarding so much of the vaccine supply. A growing movement is calling for the development of a people’s vaccine and the suspension of intellectual property rights to expand access. We speak with Dr. Mohga Kamal-Yanni, a policy adviser to the People’s Vaccine Alliance, and Achal Prabhala, a public health advocate and coordinator of the AccessIBSA project, which campaigns for access to medicines in India, Brazil and South Africa.
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: President-elect Joe Biden pledged Tuesday to distribute 100 million vaccine shots in the first 100 days of his administration. Biden’s vow came on the same day Britain began a mass vaccination program using a vaccine developed by Pfizer-BioNTech. The vaccine is expected to be soon approved in the United States, as well, as early as tomorrow.
On Tuesday, President Trump held what he called a vaccine summit at the White House. Trump claimed COVID deaths and hospitalizations would quickly decrease, but the White House Coronavirus Task Force is warning the spread of COVID would not be reduced until the spring, based on current vaccination plans. A report by the task force obtained by CNN states, quote, “The current vaccine implementation will not substantially reduce viral spread, hospitalizations, or fatalities until the 100 million Americans with comorbidities can be fully immunized, which will take until the late spring,” unquote.
Meanwhile, a new report finds as many as nine out of 10 people in dozens of poorer countries could miss out on the coronavirus vaccine until at least 2022, because wealthy countries, including the United States, have hoarded enough doses to vaccinate their entire populations nearly three times over. The report was issued by the People’s Vaccine Alliance, which includes Amnesty International, Frontline AIDS, Global Justice Now and Oxfam.
This is Winifred Byanyima, executive director of UNAIDS, in a video produced by the People’s Vaccine Alliance.
WINIFRED BYANYIMA: Huge pharmaceutical companies are keeping the vaccine research a secret. They’re deciding how many vaccines get made, how much to charge for them, and who gets vaccinated. This will no doubt leave billions of people behind. Pharma companies are putting profit, not people, first. Yet billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money is funding their work. We cannot let the CEOs of a handful of pharmaceutical companies decide our future. We need a vaccine that everyone can have free of charge, no matter where you live or whether you are rich or you’re poor. We need companies to share all their research so we can make enough safe vaccines for everyone. We need a vaccine owned by all of us. To end this COVID-19 pandemic, we need to pull together once more.
AMY GOODMAN: That was the UNAIDS executive director, part of the People’s Vaccine Alliance. The World Health Organization has also warned about the inequitable distribution of the vaccine. This is WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus.
TEDROS ADHANOM GHEBREYESUS: We simply cannot accept a world in which the poor and marginalized are trampled by the rich and powerful in the stampede for vaccines. This is a global crisis, and the solutions must be shared equitably as global public goods, not as private commodities that widen inequalities.
AMY GOODMAN: We’re joined right now by two guests. In Oxford, England, Dr. Mohga Kamal-Yanni. She is policy adviser to the People’s Vaccine Alliance and to UNAIDS, the joint U.N. program on HIV and AIDS. She has worked for decades on access to medicines and healthcare in developing countries.
And in Bangalore, India, Achal Prabhala is with us, coordinator of the AccessIBSA project, which campaigns for access to medicines in India, Brazil and South Africa. He recently co-authored an op-ed published in The New York Times headlined “Want Vaccines Fast? Suspend Intellectual Property Rights.” We’re going to begin with the doctor, Dr. Mohga Kamal-Yanni.
You’re in Oxford, actually, where one of those vaccine tests has began, and that is AstraZeneca-Oxford. But start off by talking about what is a people’s vaccine and what are the inequities right now. Who will get this vaccine, what countries, and what countries won’t?
DR. MOHGA KAMAL–YANNI: Well, the People’s Vaccine is a coalition of organizations like Amnesty, Frontline AIDS, Global Justice, Oxfam. It’s co-led by Oxfam and UNAIDS. And it has so many people, you know, academics, health activists, health experts, NGOs, patient groups, from all over the world, united for one aim, which has a people’s vaccine, not a profit vaccine. So we want a vaccine — basically, we’re calling for vaccination that is available for all people at risk, and then for everybody once we have enough doses, but not the way it’s happening now, where if you happen to be born in a rich country, you get the vaccine; if you happen to be born in a poor country, you don’t.
And yesterday in the U.K., they started vaccinating older people, and there was some clapping. And, you know, it was a lot of joy. And, of course, it’s brilliant, you know, that there is hope that this problem that we’re all suffering from will be — you know, there’s a light at the end of the tunnel. However, that joy is only limited to people living here. I’ve got friends and relatives and people that I work with in other countries, in developing countries, who are saying, “Yeah, and what about us?” And yeah, what about them?
So, this is really a big problem. There’s just so many — it’s kind of dividing the world between those who have and can pay and those who don’t and can’t pay, and, therefore, well, you can stand in the back on the queue; we don’t know when you can get the vaccine. And that is just not right. It’s not right on moral grounds. It’s not right on public health grounds, because everybody is saying, “Nobody is safe until everybody is safe.” Yeah, OK. How do you make everybody safe? So, a vaccine nationalism will not get you to everybody safe.
And also, on economic ground, you’re not going to get the economy growing, if just one — or back to normal, if one country vaccinate its population and the rest of the world isn’t. You can’t trade with people who are sick or people who have a high level of infections. So, you know, it just doesn’t make sense at all.
The other important point is that this is not kind of fact of life that, oh, we have limited amount of vaccines. Actually, that’s not the case. There are other options that will enable the world to produce more vaccines, and therefore vaccinate more people. So, basically, what’s happening now, if you can imagine that we have a small pie — so that’s one vaccine, a small pie. And so, basically, the rich can have the bigger share of it, and then we’ll have just crumbs left for developing countries. Well, the idea is that: Well, why don’t we increase supply so everybody can have a decent share of it, rather than fighting on a little one?
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, Dr. Kamal-Yanni, I wanted to ask you about the AstraZeneca-Oxford vaccine and how access to that vaccine may be more equitable at this stage. Could you talk about some of the agreements that the AstraZeneca has reached with the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations and Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance?
DR. MOHGA KAMAL–YANNI: Well, basically, I mean, this vaccine has been developed by Oxford University. Oxford University has a standard on managing intellectual property. And it actually talks about open license. However, when they did the deal or the contract with AstraZeneca, it became exclusive license for AstraZeneca. But they managed to put some conditions in the contract about making the vaccine accessible to developing countries.
So, AstraZeneca went to one of the big vaccine producers in India, the Serum Institute, and made an agreement to produce 1 billion doses, so that’s vaccinating 500 million people. Half of them will be in India. So, it’s a good way — you know, good start to make more vaccines available. They also — AstraZeneca also has some agreements with other countries, like with Argentina and Brazil, so that may cover a number of people in Latin America. But what about the rest of the population? There are some other deals with countries, but not production as such.
You know, you can’t leave — you know, so, AstraZeneca, compared to others, yes, they’ve done good things and also fixing the price as — well, AstraZeneca said $4 per dose, and Serum said $3 per dose. For developing countries, it will be probably $3 per dose, so $6 per course or per person. But the thing is, you can’t leave — this is the whole — you can’t leave the decision on supply, price, which country, which patient, to companies. That’s not their job. Their job is to produce. And the job of governments is to make more production, so you have to enable other producers. Like in India, there’s other producers. Other countries would have other producers.
So, if you allow technology transfer, so sharing technology — which the technology, by the way, a lot of it has been developed by public money, including from the U.S. and the U.K. and Europe and other countries. So, allowing the sharing of technology and removing the intellectual property barrier, so no patents on vaccines, then other companies can produce the vaccine, and we have more. And just like AstraZeneca did this contract with Serum, that includes, presumably, technology transfer, or some technology transfer, that can be done on a multilateral level, on a bigger level for more companies. Because all these deals, by the way, they’re all secret. You don’t know what’s in it except what they announce, rather than if you have a multilateral agreement, you don’t — you know, the negotiation happens in closed doors, but then, once they agree a license, then it’s public. Then you see what’s good and what’s bad about it.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And what about the whole issue that many developing countries are relying on the possibility of an effective vaccine coming from China? And China, obviously, is in last-stage clinical trials for several vaccines. The potential for China being the one that supplies the bulk of the vaccines to the majority of the people of the planet, what that would mean in terms of international relations in the future?
DR. MOHGA KAMAL–YANNI: Well, I mean, China has four vaccines in clinical trials phase 3. Actually, the Emirates today announced that one of these vaccines passed clinical trials, and they authorized it to work in their country. They were convinced with the safety and efficacy of the clinical trials. So, yes, if developing countries have nothing coming, you know, they can’t just sit — and I heard from a number of countries: “We’re not going to sit and wait.” So they are talking to companies in Europe and in America, but they’re also talking to companies in China. And the king of Morocco said that he’s going to vaccinate his people, and they’re aiming at vaccinating 80% of the population. And again, they have an agreement with a Chinese company. You know, that put the pressure on ensuring that these vaccines have high efficacy and high safety level, or, you know, at least acceptable safety level.
And the thing is, we need that all clinical trials get published, whether that’s from China or Pfizer or Moderna. It’s no good that companies announce their results in a press release to investors, so they have more — you know, their share value and their market value increase, but scientists, who are waiting, who understand these things, cannot investigate or review the results because there’s nothing published for them. So, we need more of transparency on that, including the Chinese, so that countries are aware of what they’re buying.
AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to bring Achal Prabhala into the conversation, again, coordinator of AccessIBSA project, which campaigns to access medicines for India, Brazil, South Africa. This piece you recently wrote in The New York Times, “Want Vaccines Fast? Suspend Intellectual Property Rights.” You’re joining us from Bangalore, India. Can you talk about what that would mean, if you suspended intellectual property rights? Talk about trade secrets. Talk about patents. Talk about government subsidies of these private companies. And how does what’s happening now, the development of this vaccine, compare to people’s access, for example, to the flu vaccine, how that was developed and financed?
ACHAL PRABHALA: Thank you, Amy, firstly. It’s great to be here. And thank you for having me.
The piece that we wrote in The New York Times was geared around an event that’s unfolding this week and the next. It doesn’t look like it will get resolved anytime soon or successfully, but that event is a proposal that South Africa and India made at the WTO, at the World Trade Organization, to temporarily suspend a trade rule called TRIPS, which is an agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual property, the supergovernance of intellectual property worldwide, which the WTO takes up. And the reason India and South Africa suggested that all member countries of the WTO should be exempted from provisions of TRIPS is so that everything that we require to survive the pandemic — the masks, the test kits, but now especially the vaccines — should be free to be made in as much capacity as possible to get them faster and cheaper to as many people as we can around the world.
There is an overwhelming support from developing countries for this proposal, but the WTO works on consensus, which means that even if five or six very rich countries oppose the proposal, it actually won’t pass. And that’s exactly what’s happening. The U.S., the EU, the U.K. and a few other rich countries, as well as, inexplicably, Brazil, have opposed this proposal and are stalling it, which means that it’s unlikely to go through without a fight.
Now, the irony of the fight having to take place this week is there’s really good news out of the U.K. There’s also really good news out of science. And personally for me, sitting in India, I wish I could share in that good news with the same spirit of cheer and celebration. I saw a moving interview with a 91-year-old called Martin Kenyon in London, who called his hospital, said, “Hey, I heard you had vaccines.” They said, “Yes, come on over and get one.” He walked over, and he got a Pfizer vaccine, the first dose of a Pfizer vaccine. And he’s looking forward to hugging his grandchildren this Christmas. And it’s a beautiful, touching story.
The problem with that is, that Pfizer vaccine, over 90% of its supplies, until the end of 2021 — so that means for the next 13 months — have been sold out to a handful of rich countries, to the U.S., to the EU and to the U.K. There’s actually no way that anyone in India or anyone anywhere outside these rich countries is going to get their hands on one of these vaccines for love or for money. They just don’t exist outside of very few number of rich countries.
That’s kind of amazing to live through in 2020. I’ve been campaigning for access to medicines for a long time. But my father had COVID. He’s 87 years old. My mother is 72 years old. I definitely would like them to have a vaccine and get one fairly quickly. The prospect of these vaccines being unrolled without any possibility of a majority of the world getting them is genuinely heartbreaking. And that’s the anger that partly prompted that piece.
The irony, of course, is that this is such a dramatically different situation from the 1950s when the flu [sic] vaccine was developed by Jonas Salk, who, of course, famously said, when asked by Ed Morrow about whether he was going to patent his invention — he said, “Hahaha, can you patent the sun?” And it’s a heartbreak — it’s a beautiful — it’s a beautiful moment. It’s a really beautiful moment. And —
AMY GOODMAN: And that was about the polio vaccine.
ACHAL PRABHALA: I’m sorry, that was about the polio vaccine. That’s exactly right. And that’s about the polio vaccine.
The tradition of Jonas Salk, however, does continue with the flu vaccine that we all take. That flu vaccine is developed at a unit of the WHO, which it’s called informally the Flu Network, and formally the Global Influenza Surveillance and Research Systems. It’s a collaborative infrastructure that they’ve set up at the WHO that involves 110 different countries, 130 different laboratories, which pool information on what strains of influenza are circulating in their countries. That information is collated. And every year, for two different flu seasons, in the Northern Hemisphere and the Southern Hemisphere, the WHO then releases what would be called the formula for the flu vaccine, which then anyone anywhere can produce, because it’s completely free of any proprietary intellectual property or monopoly, which means that billions of people have taken it since the 1970s based on this cooperative, shared system of pooling knowledge, as well as finances. And that’s created a very robust infrastructure for the production and consumption of these flu vaccines. And it’s a great success. It’s, unfortunately, exactly the kind of thing that’s not being replicated with the coronavirus vaccines.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, Achal Prabhala, I wanted to ask you: In terms of the refusal of these handful of rich countries to allow the suspension of intellectual property rights at the WTO, what is their argument? Given the enormous worldwide crisis that we’re functioning, how do they defend this? And what could possibly be done to overcome this resistance?
ACHAL PRABHALA: Juan, that’s an excellent question. And look, I think, in some way, I’ve been debating several people on this just this week, after The New York Times piece came out, as well as previously, because of my work. I wish, actually, sometimes that people would be honest and upfront and say, “Look, we actually care about these corporations more than global human life. We’re actually fine with a certain number of usually poor people dying for a lack of access to these vaccines, as long as the companies and the industry that makes them survives.” I’d be willing to listen to that argument, because it at least would be honest.
What happens instead is that the arguments that are advanced are, A, that it’s not a problem. To say that it’s not a problem ignores 20 years of human history, where millions of people died because of lack of access to monopoly drugs for AIDS, and then did so again for lack of access to drugs for cancer, and then did so again for lack of access to hepatitis C drugs, and, by the way, are doing today in the United States for lack of access to insulin, which is, again, patented, for lack of access to PrEP for AIDS, or for a lack of access to cystic fibrosis drugs in the U.K. So, it’s to deny reality.
But the logic that’s advanced is that the innovation system requires these monopolies to exist in order to reward private pharmaceutical corporations for taking big risks with private money — except for the fact that that’s not what’s happening here. It’s never happened, but it’s never happened as starkly as it is not happening in the pandemic. Moderna, which is just one of the vaccines that posted successful results a couple of weeks ago, has admitted, by its own — in its own financial reports, that 100% of its vaccine development project was funded by BARDA, by Warp Speed and the U.S. government, U.S. taxpayer money. On top of that, it’s been given preorders of another one-and-a-half billion from the United States and another substantial amount of money, nearing about a billion, from the European Union. Every other vaccine, from Pfizer to AstraZeneca, also has substantial government money. German taxpayer money of up to $445 million went into the Pfizer vaccine. AstraZeneca received huge subsidies through public money from the United Kingdom through its early development at Oxford University. All of these vaccines have, on top of that, received these very lucrative, very large preorders.
Now, you can’t have it all ways. You cannot have a vaccine project literally contracted out — I hesitate to say “subsidy,” because when it’s 100% of the cost, that’s not a subsidy, that’s ownership. You cannot have a price like a preorder of $6 billion, which is basically what Pfizer has awaiting it on successful completion of its trials and approval, and, on top of that, say, “But we also need the intellectual property monopoly because of all this private capital we’ve risked,” which doesn’t seem to actually exist. It is very, very strange, but this is the argument that’s being advanced, and it doesn’t hold water. I think they understand that, as well. It’s just that this argument has a rich history. It’s embedded in a particular kind of thinking, a particular branch of economics, which they know that they can ride on and, in effect, lie their way through opposing what is really a very sensible and unradical proposal made by South Africa and India at the WTO.
AMY GOODMAN: So, finally, how exactly — summing up in a minute, if you got around trade secrets, if the companies were forced to release their trade secrets, they didn’t get patents on this, how would a people’s vaccine work? Every company all over could just develop the vaccine where it is? What’s shocking, President Trump signs some executive order, not clear how enforceable it is, called “America First.” We have learned, if you’re altruistic or not, if someone is sick somewhere in the world, you are in danger. So, this is — everyone is in this together. But what would a people’s vaccine — how would it happen?
ACHAL PRABHALA: What it requires is, firstly, for companies to say, “There are two aspects of our monopoly that we’ll give up. We will share with you our patents, and we’ll share with you our trade secrets.” Trade secrets are the know-how and the technology that’s required to make a vaccine. It’s a very important part of the process. If they were to say, “Look, we’ll license this to any company with a reputation and a quality certification that’s willing to make this vaccine with us,” then let’s open it up, and let’s have anyone interested do it. And if they did that, they would suddenly find that there are whole avenues of supply that open up around the world. There are over 20 vaccine manufacturers in India, but there are also eight vaccine manufacturers on the continent of Africa. And there are a number of ways in which you can do this collaboratively. The one way not to do it is the way that they are, by producing these artificially limited quantities of these vaccines by sort of keeping it all to themselves.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And I wanted to ask Dr. Kamal-Yanni again about the situation with — the Trump administration had removed the United States from the World Health Organization. President-elect Biden is now saying he will return the U.S. to the WHO. What do you think has been the impact of the United States pulling out of the WHO in the midst of this pandemic?
DR. MOHGA KAMAL–YANNI: Well, I mean, what do you say about such an amazing, really incredible, irresponsible, I’m afraid, decision in the middle of a pandemic to do that? I mean, it’s a strange decision even if we’re not in a pandemic. So what do you think if we are in the middle of it? It’s really, really not very good.
My dream, to be honest, as a non-American, about your election, is to retain two things: one, the American role in advancing global health, and particularly in joining the WHO, and also, you know, putting science before politics. This has been also very, very problematic from the U.S. It really affected not just decision makers in other countries, but also ordinary people. This ignoring the science behind COVID was really, really bad.
So, we do hope that the new administration — I mean, they made commitment — Biden made a commitment to join the WHO. That is fantastic. The sooner, the better, you know? That would be great, but also for the U.S. to join something like or to voice public support for something like this technology access pool that WHO and other countries co-sponsored to do the facilitation of licensing intellectual property and — so, managing intellectual property — you know, your previous question — but also facilitating technology transfer to other companies. So, supporting the C-TAP would be absolutely fantastic.
For the U.S. new administration, I mean, it’s not in — it wouldn’t catch that December meeting that my colleague was talking about, but, in general, playing a positive role in the WTO in putting public health before profit. And we’re not saying companies don’t make profit. We’re not saying that at all. But we’re saying that public health comes before profit, which is, by the way, something that all the World Trade Organization members agreed on in Doha in 2001. So, it —
AMY GOODMAN: Dr. Mohga Kamal — we want to thank so much for being with us, Dr. Mohga Kamal-Yanni, People’s Vaccine Alliance and UNAIDS. And thank you to Achal Prabhala, the AccessIBSA project, co-authored New York Times headlined piece, that we will link to, “Want Vaccines Fast? Suspend Intellectual Property Rights.” He’s speaking to us from Bangalore, and the doctor is speaking to us from Oxford, England.
When we come back, we look at why former jurors and even a prosecutor are speaking out against the federal execution of an African American man, Brandon Bernard, scheduled to die Thursday — on International Human Rights Day. Stay with us.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.


truthout--2020-12-09--Lobbyist Fundraisers and GOP Foreign Agent Receive Key Appointments Under Trump

Lobbyists steering millions of dollars to President Donald Trump ’ s campaign and the Republican Party have landed federal appointments , serving in the Trump administration while lobbying for the agendas of foreign actors and other special interests .
By collecting political contributions from multiple donors , these lobbyist “ bundlers ” can deliver more money in one large “ bundle ” than would otherwise be allowed from a single individual donor under contribution limits .
Trump pledged to ban foreign lobbyists from raising money in U.S. elections during his 2016 presidential bid .
But Trump Victory , Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Republican National Committee raked in more than $ 21.3 million from foreign agents and lobbyist fundraisers in the 2020 cycle .
The three top lobbyist bundlers raised more than $ 15.3 million of that , and two of those big lobbyist fundraisers for the RNC and Trump also received what the White House described as “ key appointments ” in his administration .
Jeff Miller continues to be the top lobbyist bundling the most money for Trump ’ s joint fundraising committee and the RNC during the 2020 election , raising more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
After serving as vice chair of Trump ’ s inaugural committee , Miller founded the lobbying firm Miller Strategies days after Trump ’ s 2017 inauguration .
On Dec. 3 , the White House announced that Trump is appointing Miller to the United States Holocaust Memorial Council .
Because the position is considered to be a special advisory role , Miller is not subject to the same ethics restrictions as some full-time executive branch employees and will be able to continue his lucrative lobbying work .
Miller Strategies raked in around $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 9.7 million just through the first three quarters of 2020 , a significant surge from $ 5.2 million in 2018 and $ 2.1 million in 2017 .
Miller ’ s firm is staffed with multiple former White House aides and its clients range from Amazon and Apple to Pfizer and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America .
Another top lobbyist fundraiser for Trump ’ s joint fundraising committee is Brian Ballard , who steered more than $ 2.2 million in bundled funds to the operations .
As top political fundraiser for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Victory and a high-dollar bundler in 2016 , Ballard served as a member of Trump ’ s transition team and vice chair of Trump ’ s inaugural committee .
Once Trump took office , Ballard assembled a team of operatives with deep Trump ties and leveraged those ties to quickly build Ballard Partners into a powerhouse lobbying firm .
His firm ’ s big lobbying clients include domestic lobbying clients from British American Tobacco and private prison company GEO Group to General Motors and Amazon .
Ballard has been a foreign agent of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Zimbabwe and other foreign governments .
As his firm raked in millions with a growing client base of over 100 foreign actors and other special interests , Ballard continued to fundraise big bucks for Trump .
Like Miller , Ballard is also a lobbyist who Trump recently appointed to a special position in his administration .
The White House ’ s Dec. 3 announcement of “ key administration post ” appointments shows Trump ’ s intent to appoint Ballard to the Board of Trustees of the John F. Kennedy Center for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t exactly give Ballard the nuclear codes , it does give the lobbyist ample opportunity for access in the Trump administration and the multi-year term of the appointment means Ballard also stands to have access to the Biden administration — a potentially enviable position for a Trump-tied lobbyist navigating a post-Trump Washington .
Former executive branch appointees are barred from working as agents of foreign governments or foreign political parties under Trump ’ s 2017 ethics executive order but its definition of “ appointee ” only explicitly covers full-time , non-career political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” role in Trump ’ s government is subject to less stringent ethics rules , allowing him to continue lobbying for special interests and serving as a foreign agent to multiple foreign governments while serving as a federal appointee .
Ballard ’ s fellow Trump transition team member , Pam Bondi , joined Ballard Partners in 2019 and took on a slate of lobbying clients — including private prison company GEO Group and multiple foreign interests .
Bondi soon registered as a foreign agent for Qatar ’ s government and began lobbying for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Russian businesswoman Marsha Lazareva , was arrested and jailed by Kuwaiti officials for allegedly misusing funds .
Trump appointed Pam Bondi as a member of the President ’ s Commission on Combating Drug Addiction and the Opioid Crisis in 2017 then in 2019 appointed her to be a “ special adviser ” to the President in the Office of White House Counsel .
Bondi officially ended her role in Ballard Partners ’ work for Qatar while she was on Trump ’ s impeachment defense team but continued working at Ballard ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Qatari government again months later in 2020 .
On Friday , Dec. 4 , Trump bundler David Bossie was appointed to serve on the U.S. Department of Defense ’ s Defense Business Board along with fellow Trump campaign aide-turned-lobbyist Corey Lewandowski .
The Trump campaign distanced itself from Bossie after allegations he used Trump ’ s name for a political group to scam elderly Republican voters for Bossie ’ s own financial gain but he was given a new campaign role months later .
Bossie bundled $ 150,000 for Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tamasi , D.C. chairman of Trump ’ s 2016 joint fundraising committee , is another lobbyist fundraiser who bundled more than $ 500,000 for Trump ’ s campaign and the RNC in 2020 .
In September , Trump appointed Tamasi to serve at least a 3-year term on the President ’ s Cultural Property Advisory Committee .
Since this role is considered a special advisory position , Tamasi has also continued to serve as a foreign agent for Kosovo and Georgia .
Lobbyist Phil Bryant , former Mississippi governor , also courted a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House and bundled $ 30,000 for Trump ’ s joint fundraising committee in 2020 .
Trump appointed Bryant to serve on the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council alongside top Cabinet officials in 2017 .
Not all of Trump ’ s big lobbyist bundlers got appointments in the administration but their high-dollar fundraising and close proximity to Trump allies still puts them in a unique position to potentially influence policy that could benefit their clients .
Former Rep. Kent Hance ( R-Texas ) raised more than $ 2.9 million for Trump and the RNC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lobbyist bundlers .
Hance ’ s recent lobbying clients include the Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America , Mexican cement firm Cemex and German steel conglomerate ThyssenKrupp .
Texas-based GOP donor Roy Bailey is another lobbyist with deep ties to Trump ’ s campaign and allies who raised more than $ 800,000 for Trump Victory .
Bailey served as a top fundraising official for Trump ’ s inauguration then became a top fundraising official for pro-Trump super PAC America First Action .
He then became a finance co-chair of Trump ’ s re-election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ formal Trump appointment , but has been a longtime business partner of Rudy Giuliani , helping run Giuliani Partners LLC and serving as a CEO of Giuliani Deason Capital Interests LLC , where the two partnered with Dallas-based billionaire and Republican megadonor Darwin Deason .
Another top lobbyist bundler is Jason Osborne , who raised $ 720,000 for Trump ’ s joint fundraising committee and the RNC .
After working for Trump ’ s 2016 campaign , Osborne did not join the administration but instead co-founded lobbying and public relations firm Turnberry Solutions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Osbourne ’ s clients have ranged from the Mariana Islands to Deutsche Telekom and the Center for Sportfishing Policy .
Big Trump bundlers are not the only foreign agents and lobbyists to land “ special ” roles in Trump ’ s administration , but many still have at least some history of political giving to key players in the federal government .
Former Commerce Department official-turned-lobbyist Eric Branstad is another of Trump ’ s lobbyist bundlers , raising more than $ 130,000 reported in 2020 election FEC filings .
Branstad works for Mercury @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Spanish design firm Cosentino Group and technology company InterDigital Inc .
While Branstad is not a registered foreign agent , he has come under some scrutiny for allegedly operating as a shadow lobbyist .
He traveled to Beijing to meet Chinese government organizations with another Trump-tied foreign agent on Mercury ’ s team while his father , Terry Branstad , was Trump ’ s ambassador to China .
ZTE cut a deal on sanctions with the Commerce Department , where Eric Branstad previously worked , weeks later .

Lobbyists steering millions of dollars to Trump’s campaign and the Republican Party have landed federal appointments.
Lobbyists steering millions of dollars to President Donald Trump’s campaign and the Republican Party have landed federal appointments, serving in the Trump administration while lobbying for the agendas of foreign actors and other special interests.
By collecting political contributions from multiple donors, these lobbyist “bundlers” can deliver more money in one large “bundle” than would otherwise be allowed from a single individual donor under contribution limits.
Trump pledged to ban foreign lobbyists from raising money in U.S. elections during his 2016 presidential bid. But Trump Victory, Trump’s big-dollar joint fundraising committee, and the Republican National Committee raked in more than $21.3 million from foreign agents and lobbyist fundraisers in the 2020 cycle.
The three top lobbyist bundlers raised more than $15.3 million of that, and two of those big lobbyist fundraisers for the RNC and Trump also received what the White House described as “key appointments” in his administration.
Jeff Miller continues to be the top lobbyist bundling the most money for Trump’s joint fundraising committee and the RNC during the 2020 election, raising more than $10.2 million for the operations.
After serving as vice chair of Trump’s inaugural committee, Miller founded the lobbying firm Miller Strategies days after Trump’s 2017 inauguration.
On Dec. 3, the White House announced that Trump is appointing Miller to the United States Holocaust Memorial Council. Because the position is considered to be a special advisory role, Miller is not subject to the same ethics restrictions as some full-time executive branch employees and will be able to continue his lucrative lobbying work.
Miller Strategies raked in around $8.1 million in 2019 alone and over $9.7 million just through the first three quarters of 2020, a significant surge from $5.2 million in 2018 and $2.1 million in 2017. Miller’s firm is staffed with multiple former White House aides and its clients range from Amazon and Apple to Pfizer and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.
Another top lobbyist fundraiser for Trump’s joint fundraising committee is Brian Ballard, who steered more than $2.2 million in bundled funds to the operations.
As top political fundraiser for the Trump campaign as chair of Trump Victory and a high-dollar bundler in 2016, Ballard served as a member of Trump’s transition team and vice chair of Trump’s inaugural committee. Once Trump took office, Ballard assembled a team of operatives with deep Trump ties and leveraged those ties to quickly build Ballard Partners into a powerhouse lobbying firm.
His firm’s big lobbying clients include domestic lobbying clients from British American Tobacco and private prison company GEO Group to General Motors and Amazon. Ballard has been a foreign agent of Turkey, Qatar, the Dominican Republic, Zimbabwe and other foreign governments.
As his firm raked in millions with a growing client base of over 100 foreign actors and other special interests, Ballard continued to fundraise big bucks for Trump.
Like Miller, Ballard is also a lobbyist who Trump recently appointed to a special position in his administration. The White House’s Dec. 3 announcement of “key administration post” appointments shows Trump’s intent to appoint Ballard to the Board of Trustees of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.
While the position doesn’t exactly give Ballard the nuclear codes, it does give the lobbyist ample opportunity for access in the Trump administration and the multi-year term of the appointment means Ballard also stands to have access to the Biden administration — a potentially enviable position for a Trump-tied lobbyist navigating a post-Trump Washington.
Former executive branch appointees are barred from working as agents of foreign governments or foreign political parties under Trump’s 2017 ethics executive order but its definition of “appointee” only explicitly covers full-time, non-career political appointees.
Ballard’s “special” role in Trump’s government is subject to less stringent ethics rules, allowing him to continue lobbying for special interests and serving as a foreign agent to multiple foreign governments while serving as a federal appointee.
Ballard’s fellow Trump transition team member, Pam Bondi, joined Ballard Partners in 2019 and took on a slate of lobbying clients — including private prison company GEO Group and multiple foreign interests. Bondi soon registered as a foreign agent for Qatar’s government and began lobbying for a Kuwait-based firm whose CEO and vice-chairwoman, Russian businesswoman Marsha Lazareva, was arrested and jailed by Kuwaiti officials for allegedly misusing funds.
Trump appointed Pam Bondi as a member of the President’s Commission on Combating Drug Addiction and the Opioid Crisis in 2017 then in 2019 appointed her to be a “special adviser” to the President in the Office of White House Counsel. Bondi officially ended her role in Ballard Partners’ work for Qatar while she was on Trump’s impeachment defense team but continued working at Ballard’s firm then registered as a foreign agent of the Qatari government again months later in 2020.
On Friday, Dec. 4, Trump bundler David Bossie was appointed to serve on the U.S. Department of Defense’s Defense Business Board along with fellow Trump campaign aide-turned-lobbyist Corey Lewandowski. The Trump campaign distanced itself from Bossie after allegations he used Trump’s name for a political group to scam elderly Republican voters for Bossie’s own financial gain but he was given a new campaign role months later. Bossie bundled $150,000 for Trump’s 2020 joint fundraising committee.
David Tamasi, D.C. chairman of Trump’s 2016 joint fundraising committee, is another lobbyist fundraiser who bundled more than $500,000 for Trump’s campaign and the RNC in 2020. In September, Trump appointed Tamasi to serve at least a 3-year term on the President’s Cultural Property Advisory Committee. Since this role is considered a special advisory position, Tamasi has also continued to serve as a foreign agent for Kosovo and Georgia.
Lobbyist Phil Bryant, former Mississippi governor, also courted a close relationship with Trump’s White House and bundled $30,000 for Trump’s joint fundraising committee in 2020. Trump appointed Bryant to serve on the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council alongside top Cabinet officials in 2017.
Other Top Lobbyist Bundlers’ Ties to Trump Allies
Not all of Trump’s big lobbyist bundlers got appointments in the administration but their high-dollar fundraising and close proximity to Trump allies still puts them in a unique position to potentially influence policy that could benefit their clients.
Former Rep. Kent Hance (R-Texas) raised more than $2.9 million for Trump and the RNC, making him one of the top lobbyist bundlers. Hance’s recent lobbying clients include the Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America, Mexican cement firm Cemex and German steel conglomerate ThyssenKrupp.
Texas-based GOP donor Roy Bailey is another lobbyist with deep ties to Trump’s campaign and allies who raised more than $800,000 for Trump Victory. Bailey served as a top fundraising official for Trump’s inauguration then became a top fundraising official for pro-Trump super PAC America First Action. He then became a finance co-chair of Trump’s re-election campaign.
Bailey has not received a formal Trump appointment, but has been a longtime business partner of Rudy Giuliani, helping run Giuliani Partners LLC and serving as a CEO of Giuliani Deason Capital Interests LLC, where the two partnered with Dallas-based billionaire and Republican megadonor Darwin Deason.
Another top lobbyist bundler is Jason Osborne, who raised $720,000 for Trump’s joint fundraising committee and the RNC. After working for Trump’s 2016 campaign, Osborne did not join the administration but instead co-founded lobbying and public relations firm Turnberry Solutions with fellow Trump aide Mike Rubino. Osbourne’s clients have ranged from the Mariana Islands to Deutsche Telekom and the Center for Sportfishing Policy.
Big Trump bundlers are not the only foreign agents and lobbyists to land “special” roles in Trump’s administration, but many still have at least some history of political giving to key players in the federal government.
Former Commerce Department official-turned-lobbyist Eric Branstad is another of Trump’s lobbyist bundlers, raising more than $130,000 reported in 2020 election FEC filings.
Branstad works for Mercury Public Affairs as a registered lobbyist for Spanish design firm Cosentino Group and technology company InterDigital Inc.
While Branstad is not a registered foreign agent, he has come under some scrutiny for allegedly operating as a shadow lobbyist. He traveled to Beijing to meet Chinese government organizations with another Trump-tied foreign agent on Mercury’s team while his father, Terry Branstad, was Trump’s ambassador to China. ZTE cut a deal on sanctions with the Commerce Department, where Eric Branstad previously worked, weeks later.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.


truthout--2020-12-09--Progressives Denounce Biden Pick of “Mr. Monsanto” Tom Vilsack to Head USDA

Critics of Vilsack , who served as governor of Iowa from 1999 to 2007 , have pointed to his failure to confront Big Ag during his time as USDA chief in the Obama administration .
Journalist Branko Marcetic wrote for In These Times over the summer that “ while his tenure wasn ’ t uniformly bad — Vilsack resisted Republican attacks on food stamps and upped federal support for organic food — he angered progressive groups by letting poultry factories self-regulate , speeding up the approval process for GMO crops , shelving new regulations on big agriculture at the industry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to craft an industry-friendly national GMO-labeling bill intended to replace a pioneering stricter standard in Vermont.
” “ The move , ” Marcetic noted , “ helped earn him the derisive moniker  ‘ Mr .
Monsanto ’ and the enmity of many Bernie Sanders supporters at a time in 2016 when he was shortlisted as one of Hillary Clinton ’ s potential running mates.
” Prominent civil rights organizations have also raised alarm over Vilsack ’ s record on issues of racial justice , pointing specifically to his department ’ s treatment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of USDA official Shirley Sherrod after she was smeared by far-right publication Breitbart .
“ It would be a slap in the face to all Black people for this administration to appoint him , ” Corey Lea of the Cowtown Foundation , an organization that advocates for Black farmers , wrote in a letter urging Biden not to select Vilsack .
The Washington Post reported that during a meeting with Biden on Tuesday , NAACP President Derrick Johnson told the president-elect directly that “ he did not want Vilsack to be given the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Action also highlighted the Sherrod firing and added that during Vilsack ’ s tenure as secretary , USDA “ foreclosed on Black farmers after they complained about discrimination.
” “ We need a USDA secretary on the side of everyday people who rely on the department in rural , urban , and suburban communities , ” Goehl said .
“ Instead , we ’ re getting a revolving-door appointment .
If this is not the fox guarding the henhouse , it ’ s pretty damn close .
”

Critics of Vilsack, who served as governor of Iowa from 1999 to 2007, have pointed to his failure to confront Big Ag during his time as USDA chief in the Obama administration.
Journalist Branko Marcetic wrote for In These Times over the summer that “while his tenure wasn’t uniformly bad — Vilsack resisted Republican attacks on food stamps and upped federal support for organic food — he angered progressive groups by letting poultry factories self-regulate, speeding up the approval process for GMO crops, shelving new regulations on big agriculture at the industry’s behest, and stepping in to craft an industry-friendly national GMO-labeling bill intended to replace a pioneering stricter standard in Vermont.”
“The move,” Marcetic noted, “helped earn him the derisive moniker ‘Mr. Monsanto’ and the enmity of many Bernie Sanders supporters at a time in 2016 when he was shortlisted as one of Hillary Clinton’s potential running mates.”
Prominent civil rights organizations have also raised alarm over Vilsack’s record on issues of racial justice, pointing specifically to his department’s treatment of Black farmers and his 2010 firing of USDA official Shirley Sherrod after she was smeared by far-right publication Breitbart.
“It would be a slap in the face to all Black people for this administration to appoint him,” Corey Lea of the Cowtown Foundation, an organization that advocates for Black farmers, wrote in a letter urging Biden not to select Vilsack.
The Washington Post reported that during a meeting with Biden on Tuesday, NAACP President Derrick Johnson told the president-elect directly that “he did not want Vilsack to be given the agriculture job.”
Goehl of People’s Action also highlighted the Sherrod firing and added that during Vilsack’s tenure as secretary, USDA “foreclosed on Black farmers after they complained about discrimination.”
“We need a USDA secretary on the side of everyday people who rely on the department in rural, urban, and suburban communities,” Goehl said. “Instead, we’re getting a revolving-door appointment. If this is not the fox guarding the henhouse, it’s pretty damn close.”


truthout--2020-12-09--Trump’s Backers Are Becoming More Violent. I Fear What Will Happen in January.

This was the infamous message Donald Trump delivered to the Proud Boys during that first calamitous debate with Joe Biden back in September .
Moderator Chris Wallace had asked Trump to condemn “ white supremacists and militia groups , ” and Trump took the moment to give that one group — among the most violent , dangerous and heavily armed of the lot — the best day of its life .
“ To say Proud Boys are energized by this is an understatement , ” Megan Squire , a professor at Elon University who tracks online extremism , told NBC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were pro-Trump before this shout-out , and they are absolutely over the moon now .
Their fantasy is to fight antifa in his defense , and he apparently just asked them to do just that.
” Current Proud Boy chairman Enrique Tarrio responded ominously for the group on the night of the debate : “ Standing by sir.
” But for what ?
A signal , perhaps , from the one person all these white supremacist organizations have cleaved to .
A signal from the person who has already signaled to them time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if to say , “ I see you , we are one.
” That deeply disturbing debate moment was carried away in the slipstream of immediate history ; some 48 hours after Trump said it , he was in the hospital battling COVID-19 , and suddenly the media had moved on from discussing how the president of the United States was passing notes to fascists during study hall .
Kathleen Belew , the author of Bring the War Home : The White Power Movement and Paramilitary America , who has studied groups like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this analysis of the Proud Boys and Trump ’ s signaling to them : They should be seen as fellow travelers with white power groups and activists .
Names and tactics vary , but the white power movement is united in ideology and intent .
Its adherents include propagandists calling for the end of non-European immigration , those who carry out attacks mislabeled “ lone wolf ” violence in places like El Paso , Pittsburgh , Charleston , S.C. , and Christchurch , New Zealand , and groups that train secretly for war @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for nuclear war , like Atomwaffen Division .
It also includes members of the Ku Klux Klan , neo-Nazi and racist skinhead groups , and large segments of the Boogaloo Boys and extralegal militias .
This is why it is a mistake to understand Mr. Trump ’ s statement as directed solely to the Proud Boys — which had , before the night was over , incorporated “ Stand Back , Stand By ” into a badge logo .
Other groups aligned with the white power movement will certainly interpret Mr. Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ complex web has worked exactly this way since the late 1970s , with disastrous results .
Donald Trump understands the use of power at the brass-knuckles level .
Subtlety is not in his lexicon , as has been demonstrated multiple times since the election through his brazen broad-daylight settling of grudges throughout his entire administration .
Perceived “ enemies ” — both real and imagined — are being thrown from their positions at dizzying speed , often with no warning .
Bill Barr , Trump ’ s own attorney general , didn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election , and now it ’ s a footrace to see if he quits before he gets Twitter-fired .
It is oafish leadership in every way , yet demonstrably effective when backed up by a muscular voting base that will destroy any Republican politician who dares to cross the commander-in-chief .
Trump has done so many terrible things , and yet his fellow Republicans have largely responded with silence , because even a misplaced syllable could bring down the wrath of the devoted and end their political careers .
In other words , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right when you have an army .
That base is Trump ’ s political army , one that is permanently mobilized to serve as an insurance policy against his blunders , vivid flaws and anti-democratic designs .
They , too , have become increasingly violent and threatening as Trump ’ s already negligible reelection hopes have all but collapsed .
And Republican officials are egging them on , as alarmingly evidenced by the official Twitter account of the Republican Party of Arizona , which shared a tweet from a # StopTheSteal fanatic saying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ life for this fight.
” Rather than criticize the implication that Trump supporters should martyr themselves “ for the cause , ” the Republican Party of Arizona instead tweeted , “ He is .
Are you ?
” Election officials in multiple states are being menaced in their homes and threatened on the job .
As the election endgame plays out , these threats promise only to increase in frequency and fervor .
The Proud Boys and groups like it are Trump ’ s brass knuckles , the weapon in his pocket we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We know it ’ s there , the right-wing groups know it ’ s there , and more to the point , Trump knows we know it ’ s there .
It ’ s the steel inside his ham fist , the implicit threat hanging over all of politics now that he has folded brazen white supremacy into his core political identity .
It ’ s the glint he gets in his eye whenever he feels untouchable .
I got these guys , he seems to leer .
Who do you got ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ superseding right , and Trump speaks it fluently even when his lips aren ’ t moving .
It ’ s possible that a major confrontation between the far right and anti-fascist counterprotesters may occur in January , when Congress is set to certify the Electoral College results confirming Joe Biden ’ s victory .
We will see if Trump keeps those knuckles in his pocket .

Trump’s base has become increasingly threatening as his already negligible reelection hopes have all but collapsed.
“Stand back and stand by.”
This was the infamous message Donald Trump delivered to the Proud Boys during that first calamitous debate with Joe Biden back in September. Moderator Chris Wallace had asked Trump to condemn “white supremacists and militia groups,” and Trump took the moment to give that one group — among the most violent, dangerous and heavily armed of the lot — the best day of its life.
“To say Proud Boys are energized by this is an understatement,” Megan Squire, a professor at Elon University who tracks online extremism, told NBC News after the debate. “They were pro-Trump before this shout-out, and they are absolutely over the moon now. Their fantasy is to fight antifa in his defense, and he apparently just asked them to do just that.”
Current Proud Boy chairman Enrique Tarrio responded ominously for the group on the night of the debate: “Standing by sir.”
But for what?
A signal, perhaps, from the one person all these white supremacist organizations have cleaved to. A signal from the person who has already signaled to them time and again over the years, as if to say, “I see you, we are one.”
That deeply disturbing debate moment was carried away in the slipstream of immediate history; some 48 hours after Trump said it, he was in the hospital battling COVID-19, and suddenly the media had moved on from discussing how the president of the United States was passing notes to fascists during study hall.
Kathleen Belew, the author of Bring the War Home: The White Power Movement and Paramilitary America, who has studied groups like the Proud Boys for years, offers this analysis of the Proud Boys and Trump’s signaling to them:
They should be seen as fellow travelers with white power groups and activists. Names and tactics vary, but the white power movement is united in ideology and intent. Its adherents include propagandists calling for the end of non-European immigration, those who carry out attacks mislabeled “lone wolf” violence in places like El Paso, Pittsburgh, Charleston, S.C., and Christchurch, New Zealand, and groups that train secretly for war, like the Base, and even for nuclear war, like Atomwaffen Division. It also includes members of the Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazi and racist skinhead groups, and large segments of the Boogaloo Boys and extralegal militias. This is why it is a mistake to understand Mr. Trump’s statement as directed solely to the Proud Boys — which had, before the night was over, incorporated “Stand Back, Stand By” into a badge logo. Other groups aligned with the white power movement will certainly interpret Mr. Trump’s message as including them. This complex web has worked exactly this way since the late 1970s, with disastrous results.
Donald Trump understands the use of power at the brass-knuckles level. Subtlety is not in his lexicon, as has been demonstrated multiple times since the election through his brazen broad-daylight settling of grudges throughout his entire administration. Perceived “enemies” — both real and imagined — are being thrown from their positions at dizzying speed, often with no warning. Bill Barr, Trump’s own attorney general, didn’t break the law to overturn the election, and now it’s a footrace to see if he quits before he gets Twitter-fired.
It is oafish leadership in every way, yet demonstrably effective when backed up by a muscular voting base that will destroy any Republican politician who dares to cross the commander-in-chief. Trump has done so many terrible things, and yet his fellow Republicans have largely responded with silence, because even a misplaced syllable could bring down the wrath of the devoted and end their political careers.
Donald Trump understands the use of power at the brass-knuckles level.
In other words, you don’t have to be right when you have an army. That base is Trump’s political army, one that is permanently mobilized to serve as an insurance policy against his blunders, vivid flaws and anti-democratic designs. They, too, have become increasingly violent and threatening as Trump’s already negligible reelection hopes have all but collapsed. And Republican officials are egging them on, as alarmingly evidenced by the official Twitter account of the Republican Party of Arizona, which shared a tweet from a #StopTheSteal fanatic saying “I am willing to give my life for this fight.” Rather than criticize the implication that Trump supporters should martyr themselves “for the cause,” the Republican Party of Arizona instead tweeted, “He is. Are you?”
Election officials in multiple states are being menaced in their homes and threatened on the job. As the election endgame plays out, these threats promise only to increase in frequency and fervor.
The Proud Boys and groups like it are Trump’s brass knuckles, the weapon in his pocket we haven’t really seen yet. We know it’s there, the right-wing groups know it’s there, and more to the point, Trump knows we know it’s there. It’s the steel inside his ham fist, the implicit threat hanging over all of politics now that he has folded brazen white supremacy into his core political identity. It’s the glint he gets in his eye whenever he feels untouchable.
I got these guys, he seems to leer. Who do you got? It is the cold language of power superseding right, and Trump speaks it fluently even when his lips aren’t moving.
It’s possible that a major confrontation between the far right and anti-fascist counterprotesters may occur in January, when Congress is set to certify the Electoral College results confirming Joe Biden’s victory.
We will see if Trump keeps those knuckles in his pocket.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.


truthout--2020-12-09--Georgia Moves to Shut Down Early Voting Sites Ahead of Senate Runoff

Civil rights groups warned on Monday that a decision by election officials in Georgia to shutter numerous early-voting sites ahead of the state ’ s Senate runoff elections would disproportionately impact people of color .
The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund , the ACLU ’ s Georgia branch and other groups said in a letter that the decision to close six of the 11 early-voting sites that were used for the November general election in Cobb County , which borders Atlanta , “ will be harmful to Cobb County ’ s Black and Latinx voters because many of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” The county , which is home to more than 537,000 voters , will have just five polling sites when early voting kicks off on December 14 .
Along with Cobb County , three of the other 10 most populous counties in the state will reduce their early voting locations , according to NBC News .
Many of the closed sites are located in minority areas , the groups said .
In some cases , the nearest available polling site will be up to 12 miles away with inadequate transportation options .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same number of early-voting locations as it had during the general election .
Janine Eveler , the Cobb County elections director , told the groups that she does not have enough trained staff to maintain the general election locations for the runoffs , according to The Washington Post .
“ We lost several of our advance voting managers and assistant managers due to the holidays , the workload and the pandemic , ” she said in her response to the groups .
“ The remaining team members who agreed to work would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ less onerous .
… We are at the end of the election cycle and many are tired or just unwilling to work so hard , especially during this time of year.
” Eveler told the Post that many trained election workers are “ not willing to work 14-hour days for six days a week for three weeks.
” The early voting period in Georgia was marred by hours-long lines .
Some voters had to endure waits of up to 10 hours to vote .
Eveler told the Post that the county would add @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lines but the civil rights groups argued the delays showed that the areas need more polling places , not fewer .
Cobb County , which voted for President-elect Joe Biden by a 56-42 margin , is expected to be key in deciding the runoff races between Sen. David Perdue , R-Ga. , and Democrat Jon Ossoff and Sen. Kelly Loeffler , R-Ga. , and Rev .
Raphael Warnock .
Ossoff carried Cobb County in the general election by 11 points while Warnock got 38 % of the vote in the county to Loeffler @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of 21 candidates .
Though runoff elections generally get less attention than general elections , the two races will determine which party controls the Senate when Biden takes office .
Nearly 1 million voters have already requested mail-in ballots for the runoff elections , according to election officials .
About 1.3 million mail-in votes were cast in November ’ s general election , which Biden led by about a 400,000-vote margin .
Michael Pernick , an attorney for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund , told the Post that the groups were considering next @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Cobb County that would have significant difficulty accessing advance voting if that plan goes through.
” Pernick said that four locations in the southern part of the county , where many of the region ’ s Black and Latino voters live , have been folded into a single site that is “ all the way at the bottom of south Cobb and is not accessible to many of the voters in those communities.
” Eveler denied that people of color would be harmed by the closures , telling the Post that there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quadrant of the county ” and that voters have “ other options for voting , ” like mail-in ballots .
Lauren Groh-Wargo , the head of the voting rights group Fair Fight Action , disputed Eveler ’ s argument , noting that “ Black voters in particular ” have been impacted by hours-long lines in the county .
“ In an election that is sure to see high turnout and high voter enthusiasm , this is unacceptable , ” she said in a statement to the Post .
The state ’ s two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will maintain the same number of early-voting locations as they had in the general election .
Chatham County , the fifth-biggest county in the state , plans to close one early-voting site .
Forsyth County , the eighth-most populous county in the state , will shutter six of the 11 early-voting sites it used during the general election .
Hall County , the tenth-largest county , will shutter four of the eight early-voting sites .
Biden carried Chatham by 18 points while Trump carried Forsyth and Hall Counties by big double-digit leads .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ s office said it was not involved in the decisions .
“ They set their budgets and manage turnout of voters accordingly , ” Deputy Secretary of State Jordan Fuchs told NBC News .
The outlet added that county budgets may have played a role in the closures after they were forced to pay for two recounts , including one requested by the Trump campaign .
Georgia Republicans have also called to toughen voting rules , though Gov .
Brian Kemp , a Republican , shot down the idea of implementing new rules @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has drawn praise for standing up to Trump ’ s baseless attacks on the state ’ s election , has backed Republican complaints about an election that saw no major irregularities or evidence of fraud .
He called for absentee ballot rules to be tightened , drawing allegations of “ voter suppression ” from Democratic leaders .
Georgia has repeatedly been accused of voter suppression by civil rights groups after the state systemically shuttered more than 200 polling sites after the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act in 2013 .
“ This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Michael McDonald , an election expert at the University of Florida , said after the latest Cobb County closures .
Rev .
Dr. William Barber , an NAACP board member and co-chair of the Poor People ’ s Campaign , cited the report to hit out at Trump ’ s unfounded claims of voter fraud in the state .

Civil rights groups warned on Monday that a decision by election officials in Georgia to shutter numerous early-voting sites ahead of the state’s Senate runoff elections would disproportionately impact people of color.
The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the ACLU’s Georgia branch and other groups said in a letter that the decision to close six of the 11 early-voting sites that were used for the November general election in Cobb County, which borders Atlanta, “will be harmful to Cobb County’s Black and Latinx voters because many of the locations are in Black and Latinx communities.”
The county, which is home to more than 537,000 voters, will have just five polling sites when early voting kicks off on December 14. Along with Cobb County, three of the other 10 most populous counties in the state will reduce their early voting locations, according to NBC News.
Many of the closed sites are located in minority areas, the groups said. In some cases, the nearest available polling site will be up to 12 miles away with inadequate transportation options. The groups called on election officials to keep the same number of early-voting locations as it had during the general election.
Janine Eveler, the Cobb County elections director, told the groups that she does not have enough trained staff to maintain the general election locations for the runoffs, according to The Washington Post.
“We lost several of our advance voting managers and assistant managers due to the holidays, the workload and the pandemic,” she said in her response to the groups. “The remaining team members who agreed to work would do so only if the hours were less onerous. … We are at the end of the election cycle and many are tired or just unwilling to work so hard, especially during this time of year.”
Eveler told the Post that many trained election workers are “not willing to work 14-hour days for six days a week for three weeks.”
The early voting period in Georgia was marred by hours-long lines. Some voters had to endure waits of up to 10 hours to vote. Eveler told the Post that the county would add more check-in stations to speed up the lines but the civil rights groups argued the delays showed that the areas need more polling places, not fewer.
Cobb County, which voted for President-elect Joe Biden by a 56-42 margin, is expected to be key in deciding the runoff races between Sen. David Perdue, R-Ga., and Democrat Jon Ossoff and Sen. Kelly Loeffler, R-Ga., and Rev. Raphael Warnock. Ossoff carried Cobb County in the general election by 11 points while Warnock got 38% of the vote in the county to Loeffler’s 25% in a field of 21 candidates.
Though runoff elections generally get less attention than general elections, the two races will determine which party controls the Senate when Biden takes office. Nearly 1 million voters have already requested mail-in ballots for the runoff elections, according to election officials. About 1.3 million mail-in votes were cast in November’s general election, which Biden led by about a 400,000-vote margin.
Michael Pernick, an attorney for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, told the Post that the groups were considering next steps to “protect communities of color in Cobb County that would have significant difficulty accessing advance voting if that plan goes through.”
Pernick said that four locations in the southern part of the county, where many of the region’s Black and Latino voters live, have been folded into a single site that is “all the way at the bottom of south Cobb and is not accessible to many of the voters in those communities.”
Eveler denied that people of color would be harmed by the closures, telling the Post that there would be early-voting sites in “each quadrant of the county” and that voters have “other options for voting,” like mail-in ballots.
Lauren Groh-Wargo, the head of the voting rights group Fair Fight Action, disputed Eveler’s argument, noting that “Black voters in particular” have been impacted by hours-long lines in the county.
“In an election that is sure to see high turnout and high voter enthusiasm, this is unacceptable,” she said in a statement to the Post.
The state’s two largest counties, DeKalb and Gwinnett, will maintain the same number of early-voting locations as they had in the general election. Chatham County, the fifth-biggest county in the state, plans to close one early-voting site. Forsyth County, the eighth-most populous county in the state, will shutter six of the 11 early-voting sites it used during the general election. Hall County, the tenth-largest county, will shutter four of the eight early-voting sites. Biden carried Chatham by 18 points while Trump carried Forsyth and Hall Counties by big double-digit leads.
Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger’s office said it was not involved in the decisions.
“They set their budgets and manage turnout of voters accordingly,” Deputy Secretary of State Jordan Fuchs told NBC News.
The outlet added that county budgets may have played a role in the closures after they were forced to pay for two recounts, including one requested by the Trump campaign.
Georgia Republicans have also called to toughen voting rules, though Gov. Brian Kemp, a Republican, shot down the idea of implementing new rules before the runoff. Raffensperger, who has drawn praise for standing up to Trump’s baseless attacks on the state’s election, has backed Republican complaints about an election that saw no major irregularities or evidence of fraud. He called for absentee ballot rules to be tightened, drawing allegations of “voter suppression” from Democratic leaders.
Georgia has repeatedly been accused of voter suppression by civil rights groups after the state systemically shuttered more than 200 polling sites after the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act in 2013.
“This is what real election rigging looks like,” Michael McDonald, an election expert at the University of Florida, said after the latest Cobb County closures.
Rev. Dr. William Barber, an NAACP board member and co-chair of the Poor People’s Campaign, cited the report to hit out at Trump’s unfounded claims of voter fraud in the state.
“Voter suppression,” he wrote, “is the real fraud.”
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.