motherjones--2020-02-17--How Do You Get From the Trailer Park to a White House Job? Give Money to Trump’s Spiritual Adviser.

On a Friday morning in February , televangelist Paula White-Cain spent more than two hours preaching at the King Jesus church Supernatural Ministry School in Miami .
With top billing on the event website as “ Donald Trump ’ s spiritual adviser , ” White stood in front of a stage with a light show befitting a Pink Floyd cover band .
With a sanctuary that holds 7,000 people , one of the nation ’ s largest Latino churches was packed with “ apostles ” and “ prophets ” who ’ d come to be “ activated in God ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expand their ministry .
“ They called me trailer trash , ” White said , as an interpreter in a blue track suit jacket translated her words into Spanish .
“ But our God ’ s in the recycling business.
” With her husband , the keyboardist for Journey , providing a stirring backtrack , White testified about her own rags-to-riches tale , starting with her humble roots in Tupelo , Mississippi , her father ’ s suicide , her out-of-wedlock teen pregnancy , her years working her way up from janitor to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ God kept opening doors until eventually , 19 years ago , I get a phone call out of the blue , from this man named Donald Trump , ” she said , recalling the day in 2002 when the twice-divorced New York real estate mogul reached out to her after catching her show on a local Florida TV station .
“ He said , ‘ You ’ re fantastic.
’ He said , ‘ You have the ‘ it ’ factor.
’ I said , ‘ Sir , we call that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lord told her to help Trump know God .
“ I took on that assignment never knowing that one day that man that God told me to show him who He was would become the president of the United States of America , ” she told the crowd , which cheered with enthusiasm .
As one of the only women in the male-dominated world of TV preachers , White long ago reached evangelical celebrity status , publishing nearly a dozen books , launching a successful TV show , and ministering to everyone from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ York Yankees .
But she has now accomplished something no other televangelist has ever achieved : a job in the White House .
Since the end of October , she has served as the adviser to the White House Faith and Opportunity Initiative , which Trump created through an executive order in 2018 , as part of the White House Office of Public Liaison .
As such , her official duties entail consulting with the faith community on such social issues as poverty and crime prevention and making recommendations to the White House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she ’ s working in the White House doesn ’ t mean White has quit her day jobs .
To the contrary , since her appointment , White has continued to preach at her own Florida megachurch .
She ’ s promoted a new book , Something Greater : Finding Triumph Over Trials .
Her TV show “ Paula Today ” airs five days a week , and she makes numerous public speaking appearances , many of which involve asking people for as much money as they can possibly spare—often even more .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and private jobs is nearly seamless , as she invokes her relationship with Trump in her sermons and fundraising pitches , even as she wields her spiritual authority to defend the president .
But experts say the arrangement raises significant conflict of interest questions , concerns about her compliance with tax laws banning nonprofit churches from endorsing candidates .
And there ’ s the more fundamental question as to whether by installing her in a White House job , Trump has put the government ’ s stamp of approval on a religious ministry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vulnerable people for money .
“ If she is formally working on the White House staff and continuing to raise money and do other activities for her church , she creates the appearance of using her public position for personal gain , ” says Fred Wertheimer , president of Democracy 21 , a nonprofit government watchdog group , noting that it ’ s a common theme in the Trump administration , which isn ’ t likely to object .
“ If the president believes in using public office for private gain , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to hold people accountable for doing it ?
When it comes to proper conduct by executive branch officials , the Trump presidency is a lawless one.
” White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham says that White ’ s non-government work is all above board .
She is a part-time “ special government employee , ” a classification that allows her to continue her outside employment while working for the White House , Grisham says , noting that White is not taking a salary and that she ’ s gone through “ initial ethics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confidential financial disclosure form .
“ She works closely with [ the White House Counsel ’ s Office ] to ensure compliance with all government ethics rules related to her outside positions , ” Grisham said in an email .
White did not respond to questions for this story submitted to her publicist or through her ministry website .
Robert Weissman , president of the nonprofit good-government group Public Citizen , says that White ’ s position is reminiscent of the arrangement that billionaire corporate raider Carl Icahn had in 2017 , when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on regulatory reform despite huge conflicts of interest from his oil business , which he continued to run during his brief stint in the White House .
( Icahn was forced to leave the post because of the conflicts . )
But White ’ s conflicts are even murkier .
“ If she were purely a businessperson like Carl Icahn , you can identify the financial conflicts of interest .
If she were a person from a purely advocacy point of view , you could object to the ideology , but as an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nothing wrong , ” Weissman says .
“ For her , religion is a business , so you worry about how she ’ s trying to leverage the official White House position to advance her business interests and how her business interests might influence what she does in the White House.
” At the Supernatural Ministry School , White deftly offered the audience the secret of her success .
“ How did I get to the White House from the trailer ?
” she asked .
The answer , of course , was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the church—and she ’ s not talking about tossing the weekly pin money in the offering plate .
Securing Paula White , White House-caliber blessings would require students of the supernatural to give a “ First Fruits ” offering , one that is significant—the first week ’ s pay , say , or even the first month ’ s pay—to signify putting God first in everything .
White claimed during the sermon that God once told her that in 2009 , a particularly bad year , she needed to give her entire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
She broke it all down for her congregants , making it simple : If they prioritize their paychecks for more earthly needs , like keeping the lights on , they were treating Florida Power and Light ( FPL ) like God himself .
“ Instead of writing [ that check ] to the house of God as I ’ m instructed to , then what I ’ m saying spiritually is , ‘ FPL , I have now established a spiritual law that put you first .
So , FPL , save @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drug addicted son .
FPL , kill this cancer that doctors say is in my body.
’ ” Over the next half hour , White built to a crescendo , shed many tears , spoke in tongues , and implored people to give .
Hundreds of people streamed down the aisles to throw envelopes of money at her feet .
“ The First Fruits sets the pattern and establishes the destiny for what is left , ” she cried .
“ Many of you need to bring a First Fruit offering right now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the church brought baskets to the front to collect the offerings .
No one from King Jesus responded to questions from Mother Jones about where the donations went .
White is not part of any religious denomination .
She ’ s often linked to the New Apostolic Reformation , a loose association of charismatic and Pentecostal churches that , like King Jesus , focus on the supernatural and anoint their own prophets and apostles .
But White is better known as a purveyor of the prosperity gospel , a Christian theology that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and wealth .
Prosperity preachers like White are a special breed of evangelical Christians , and they are not the majority .
Many more mainstream evangelical leaders believe White ’ s ministry , with its explicit form of spiritual extortion , is not just distasteful but heretical .
“ Paula White is a charlatan and recognized as a heretic by every orthodox Christian , of whatever tribe , ” tweeted the prominent evangelical preacher Russell Moore , the president of the public policy arm of the Southern Baptist Convention , back in 2016 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ blend of intimate self-help and focus on material success as evidence of God ’ s blessings , struck a chord with Trump long ago .
They have a lot in common .
Like the president , White is twice-divorced , with a history of marital infidelities and bankruptcy , but possessing remarkable TV savvy .
They first connected in that fateful 2002 phone call , not long after White had launched her first TV show and her career was taking off .
Trump called to tell White he ’ d been watching her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ fantastic.
” Thus began a long relationship that included White gifting him a Bible for his 60th birthday in 2006 that was signed by the late , legendary minister Billy Graham .
That same year , he appeared on her TV show to promote his latest book , Why We Want You to Be Rich .
The year before , White bought a $ 3.5 million condo in Trump ’ s Park Avenue building .
When Trump first considered a presidential run in 2011 , he sought White ’ s counsel .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s the right timing , ” she told him .
The timing was obviously right in 2015 , when Trump did decide to run for president .
In Something Greater , she writes that he asked her to be a bridge to the evangelical community , a critical voting bloc that was far from being supportive of his candidacy .
His perceived moral failings—the many wives , the notorious womanizing , his unapologetic vulgarity—all added up to the support of only 3 percent of evangelical leaders and “ insiders ” surveyed by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ When Trump appeared in 2015 at the big Christian Right confab in DC , the Values Voter Summit , he got booed .
White describes how she helped improve his standing by creating an evangelical advisory council for the campaign , made up mostly of other televangelists like her , including Franklin Graham , son of the late Billy Graham , and Robert Jeffress , the controversial Dallas megachurch pastor who in 2012 , told evangelicals not to vote for Mitt Romney because , as a Mormon , Romney wasn ’ t a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ schooled Trump ’ s son-in-law Jared Kushner—an Orthodox Jew whom she describes as “ quite brilliant ” —on the “ evangelical landscape.
” Later , when Trump appeared headed toward the GOP nomination , White helped organize a meeting for him with more mainstream evangelical leaders who still had many reservations about his moral character , not to mention concerns about the televangelists he had assembled who were not their natural compatriots .
Most of them fell into line , and after Trump became the GOP nominee , White was on hand to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ night of the Republican National Convention .
After he was elected with the support of more than 80 percent of white evangelical voters , White gave the invocation at his inauguration , becoming the first clergywoman to do so , though not the first televangelist .
Since Trump ’ s election , White has helped ensure a steady stream of fringe evangelicals and prosperity preachers into the White House .
But it ’ s not clear what exactly she ’ s been doing to fulfill her governmental duties since her October appointment to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , she convened about 50 evangelicals at the White House for a special briefing that included appearances from Ivanka Trump , Vice President Mike Pence , and Trump himself , upon whom they laid hands and prayed in the Oval Office in the hopes of delivering him from impeachment .
But if she ’ s influencing the Domestic Policy Council on prisoner reentry or humanitarian aid , as required by Trump ’ s executive order creating her position , the evidence of her work is hard to see .
What is much easier @ @ @ @ @ @ @ benefitted from her White House perch .
Pete Evans is the lead investigator with the nonprofit Trinity Foundation , a Christian watchdog group that keeps tabs on televangelists and their spending habits and advocates for people who ’ ve been duped by them into giving over their last dime .
“ There ’ s no question that her position with the White House enhances her position and her profile across the country with regard to the increasing her viewership , ” he says , “ increasing her income that comes into her organization.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ falls under the umbrella of the Paula White Ministries , the name she uses on her website and in fundraising appeals .
But legally , Paula White Ministries is just another name for her home church , the City of Destiny Church in Apokpa , Florida , for which she is listed on corporate documents as president .
Federal law bars churches from endorsing political candidates .
Doing so can result in their losing their tax-exempt status .
Yet White ’ s promotion of Trump now infuses many aspects of her ostensibly nonprofit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to have slowed since her official White House appointment .
Last May , White said she would be stepping down as senior pastor at City of Destiny and handing the reins over to her son , Bradley Knight .
But White still preaches there regularly—she ’ s on deck for a “ power night ” at the church on February 16 , with her rock star husband Jonathan Cain .
In April , she ’ ll be hosting a free , three-day conference there called “ Unleashed , ” that promises attendees an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evangelical preachers , some of whom are also in Trump ’ s inner circle .
The Paula White Ministries website is replete with videos of the televangelist with Trump , or of her on TV shows talking about her relationship with Trump , and cheerleading his policies .
She even issued a statement supporting his signing of a new trade deal with Mexico and Canada .
After Trump became the first president to personally address the anti-abortion March for Life in January , White wrote on her website , “ May the grace @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump for his courageous stance for the dignity of all life.
” While preaching at a church in California , she said that her access to Trump had allowed her to anoint the White House as “ holy ground.
” Last summer , another Trump-supporting televangelist , Franklin Graham , called for a special national day of prayer on June 2 to pray for President Trump , which White promoted on her website .
She solicited prayer commitments from her fans and promised to personally “ take your name to the White House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ praying for him and his family.
” Just out of curiosity , I recently made a prayer request through her website , asking her to pray for a family member .
I got an email in return promising that White and her prayer intercessors would “ deploy the Blood of Jesus on your behalf for your peace.
” White also thanked me for “ agreeing to pray for President Trump and his family on June 2nd.
” Apparently , the form letter hasn ’ t been updated since last summer .
Less than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ email from White asking me to send her a “ favor seed ” of $ 50 or more so that she could “ Activate supernatural favor ” on my behalf .
“ Favor will make you a household name overnight , ” she writes knowingly .
Even as she ’ s running a nonprofit religious ministry and working a government job , White is once again front and center at many of Trump ’ s campaign rallies .
On January 3 , she introduced Trump at the Evangelicals for Trump coalition campaign rally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mega church that hosted the Supernatural Ministry School .
She told the same story about Trump , too , only this time , instead of rock-concert lighting , the backdrop consisted of American flags , and she stood behind a podium emblazoned with the official presidential seal .
C-Span identified her on TV as the “ White House spiritual adviser.
” People in the audience cheered , “ Four more years !
” “ When religion and politics get mixed that ’ s a huge red flag for us , ” says Evans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the prohibitions for nonprofits .
They ’ re not supposed to get involved in politics or they risk losing their nonprofit status.
” Questions about the nonprofit status of White ’ s ministries have come up long before she became a regular fixture at the White House .
In 2007 , White became one of six televangelists investigated by the Senate Finance Committee for potential abuses of their church nonprofit status .
Unlike ordinary nonprofits , churches are not required to disclose any of their financial information to the public or the IRS @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vulnerable to abuses .
Among other things , a Senate report found that White ’ s personal ministry and the church she ran with her now ex-husband used tax-exempt ministry funds to pay nearly $ 900,000 one year for the Whites ’ waterfront mansion .
It paid over a million dollars in salaries to family members and kept the Whites in the air with a private jet .
White and her church refused to cooperate with the investigation and in 2011 , Sen. Charles Grassley ( R-Iowa ) , issued a report outlining @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no other action .
White ’ s church declared bankruptcy in 2014 after defaulting on $ 29 million in loans from an evangelical credit union .
In 2011 , amid controversy , she became senior pastor at the predominantly black City of Destiny—then known as New Destiny Christian Center—after its former pastor died of a drug overdose .
One of the problems with having White working in the White House , Evans notes , is that the agency charged with policing nonprofit churches like hers is the IRS , which Trump oversees as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s many promises to evangelicals in exchange for their campaign support is that he would help abolish the Johnson Amendment , the 1950s-era tax code provision that prohibits churches from endorsing political candidates .
In 2017 , he issued an executive order attempting to scale back its enforcement by the IRS .
“ When your boss is head of all government agencies , including the IRS , you ’ re really not risking anything ” by cheerleading for the president ’ s reelection campaign , Evans says .
“ It really is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” As she moved toward the ecstatic conclusion of her sermon at the Miami Supernatural School , White told the crowd , “ I told you about the trailer to the White House because I ’ m not here by coincidence.
” She urged people to pay up so she could begin the laying of hands .
“ You can ’ t just bring a gratitude offering .
It has to be a First Fruits offering !
If it is one week ’ s salary , if it ’ s a month .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s got to be the whole of something .
Quickly !
Bring it up—do you need an envelope ?
” she said , directing people to give the First Fruits to the apostles holding baskets .
Others , whose gratitude offering was more meagre , should toss theirs on the floor .
“ God ’ s about to do something !
” White announced .
Before Trump held his January campaign rally at King Jesus , the church leader and Trump supporter , Pastor Guillermo Maldonado , had to issue a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ undocumented immigrants would be deported if they came to the rally—an indication of the church ’ s demographics .
As the bilingual sermon rose to a climax , White gave a performance that gives a whole new meaning to Ronald Reagan ’ s nine most terrifying words in the English language : “ I ’ m from the government and I ’ m here to help.
” When every last dime seemed to have been wrung from the audience , White invited all the “ barren ” women in the room who desired @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ because fruitfulness is getting ready to hit this house .
God ’ s about to open your natural womb .
God ’ s gon na open barren places.
” She told a story about helping a woman in Hawaii with no uterus and no fallopian tubes give birth .
Then she moved to each hopeful woman—some of whom were infertile , others who struggled with repeated miscarriages—and held their hands or touched her belly , telling one that she ’ d no longer miscarry .
One woman fell on the floor .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ White wept and spoke in tongues .
“ Holy , holy , holy , hallelujah , ” she cried , and then held a basket of money up high .
“ It is blessed !
” When it was over , White held a book signing for her newest book release , Something Greater , which is all about her relationship with God .
But Something Greater , of course , is really all about her relationship with Trump .
His name is mentioned 177 times in 288 pages .
Jesus merits just @ @

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
On a Friday morning in February, televangelist Paula White-Cain spent more than two hours preaching at the King Jesus church Supernatural Ministry School in Miami. With top billing on the event website as “Donald Trump’s spiritual adviser,” White stood in front of a stage with a light show befitting a Pink Floyd cover band. With a sanctuary that holds 7,000 people, one of the nation’s largest Latino churches was packed with “apostles” and “prophets” who’d come to be “activated in God’s supernatural power” and learn to expand their ministry.
“They called me trailer trash,” White said, as an interpreter in a blue track suit jacket translated her words into Spanish. “But our God’s in the recycling business.” With her husband, the keyboardist for Journey, providing a stirring backtrack, White testified about her own rags-to-riches tale, starting with her humble roots in Tupelo, Mississippi, her father’s suicide, her out-of-wedlock teen pregnancy, her years working her way up from janitor to Sunday school teacher at a Maryland church.
“God kept opening doors until eventually, 19 years ago, I get a phone call out of the blue, from this man named Donald Trump,” she said, recalling the day in 2002 when the twice-divorced New York real estate mogul reached out to her after catching her show on a local Florida TV station. “He said, ‘You’re fantastic.’ He said, ‘You have the ‘it’ factor.’ I said, ‘Sir, we call that the anointing.’” White said the Lord told her to help Trump know God. “I took on that assignment never knowing that one day that man that God told me to show him who He was would become the president of the United States of America,” she told the crowd, which cheered with enthusiasm.
“God kept opening doors until eventually, 19 years ago, I get a phone call out of the blue, from this man named Donald Trump.”
As one of the only women in the male-dominated world of TV preachers, White long ago reached evangelical celebrity status, publishing nearly a dozen books, launching a successful TV show, and ministering to everyone from the late Michael Jackson to the New York Yankees. But she has now accomplished something no other televangelist has ever achieved: a job in the White House. Since the end of October, she has served as the adviser to the White House Faith and Opportunity Initiative, which Trump created through an executive order in 2018, as part of the White House Office of Public Liaison. As such, her official duties entail consulting with the faith community on such social issues as poverty and crime prevention and making recommendations to the White House Domestic Policy Council.
But just because she’s working in the White House doesn’t mean White has quit her day jobs. To the contrary, since her appointment, White has continued to preach at her own Florida megachurch. She’s promoted a new book, Something Greater: Finding Triumph Over Trials. Her TV show “Paula Today” airs five days a week, and she makes numerous public speaking appearances, many of which involve asking people for as much money as they can possibly spare—often even more.
The melding of White’s public and private jobs is nearly seamless, as she invokes her relationship with Trump in her sermons and fundraising pitches, even as she wields her spiritual authority to defend the president. But experts say the arrangement raises significant conflict of interest questions, concerns about her compliance with tax laws banning nonprofit churches from endorsing candidates. And there’s the more fundamental question as to whether by installing her in a White House job, Trump has put the government’s stamp of approval on a religious ministry that includes faith healing and preying on vulnerable people for money.
“If she is formally working on the White House staff and continuing to raise money and do other activities for her church, she creates the appearance of using her public position for personal gain,” says Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, a nonprofit government watchdog group, noting that it’s a common theme in the Trump administration, which isn’t likely to object. “If the president believes in using public office for private gain, who is he or anyone in this administration to hold people accountable for doing it? When it comes to proper conduct by executive branch officials, the Trump presidency is a lawless one.”
White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham says that White’s non-government work is all above board. She is a part-time “special government employee,” a classification that allows her to continue her outside employment while working for the White House, Grisham says, noting that White is not taking a salary and that she’s gone through “initial ethics training.” She has also filed a confidential financial disclosure form. “She works closely with [the White House Counsel’s Office] to ensure compliance with all government ethics rules related to her outside positions,” Grisham said in an email. White did not respond to questions for this story submitted to her publicist or through her ministry website.
Robert Weissman, president of the nonprofit good-government group Public Citizen, says that White’s position is reminiscent of the arrangement that billionaire corporate raider Carl Icahn had in 2017, when Trump appointed him as a presidential adviser on regulatory reform despite huge conflicts of interest from his oil business, which he continued to run during his brief stint in the White House. (Icahn was forced to leave the post because of the conflicts.) But White’s conflicts are even murkier.
“If she were purely a businessperson like Carl Icahn, you can identify the financial conflicts of interest. If she were a person from a purely advocacy point of view, you could object to the ideology, but as an ethics matter, there would really be nothing wrong,” Weissman says. “For her, religion is a business, so you worry about how she’s trying to leverage the official White House position to advance her business interests and how her business interests might influence what she does in the White House.”
At the Supernatural Ministry School, White deftly offered the audience the secret of her success. “How did I get to the White House from the trailer?” she asked. The answer, of course, was by giving money to God by way of the church—and she’s not talking about tossing the weekly pin money in the offering plate. Securing Paula White, White House-caliber blessings would require students of the supernatural to give a “First Fruits” offering, one that is significant—the first week’s pay, say, or even the first month’s pay—to signify putting God first in everything. White claimed during the sermon that God once told her that in 2009, a particularly bad year, she needed to give her entire annual salary to God—$8 million.
She broke it all down for her congregants, making it simple: If they prioritize their paychecks for more earthly needs, like keeping the lights on, they were treating Florida Power and Light (FPL) like God himself. “Instead of writing [that check] to the house of God as I’m instructed to, then what I’m saying spiritually is, ‘FPL, I have now established a spiritual law that put you first. So, FPL, save my family, FPL, deliver my drug addicted son. FPL, kill this cancer that doctors say is in my body.’”
Over the next half hour, White built to a crescendo, shed many tears, spoke in tongues, and implored people to give. Hundreds of people streamed down the aisles to throw envelopes of money at her feet. “The First Fruits sets the pattern and establishes the destiny for what is left,” she cried. “Many of you need to bring a First Fruit offering right now!” Mostly Latino apostles and prophets from the church brought baskets to the front to collect the offerings. No one from King Jesus responded to questions from Mother Jones about where the donations went.
“The First Fruits sets the pattern and establishes the destiny for what is left. Many of you need to bring a First Fruit offering right now!”
White is not part of any religious denomination. She’s often linked to the New Apostolic Reformation, a loose association of charismatic and Pentecostal churches that, like King Jesus, focus on the supernatural and anoint their own prophets and apostles. But White is better known as a purveyor of the prosperity gospel, a Christian theology that says faith and donations will bring health and wealth. Prosperity preachers like White are a special breed of evangelical Christians, and they are not the majority.
Many more mainstream evangelical leaders believe White’s ministry, with its explicit form of spiritual extortion, is not just distasteful but heretical. “Paula White is a charlatan and recognized as a heretic by every orthodox Christian, of whatever tribe,” tweeted the prominent evangelical preacher Russell Moore, the president of the public policy arm of the Southern Baptist Convention, back in 2016 during the presidential campaign. Yet her blend of intimate self-help and focus on material success as evidence of God’s blessings, struck a chord with Trump long ago.
They have a lot in common. Like the president, White is twice-divorced, with a history of marital infidelities and bankruptcy, but possessing remarkable TV savvy. They first connected in that fateful 2002 phone call, not long after White had launched her first TV show and her career was taking off. Trump called to tell White he’d been watching her show at Mar-a-Lago and that she was “fantastic.” Thus began a long relationship that included White gifting him a Bible for his 60th birthday in 2006 that was signed by the late, legendary minister Billy Graham. That same year, he appeared on her TV show to promote his latest book, Why We Want You to Be Rich. The year before, White bought a $3.5 million condo in Trump’s Park Avenue building. When Trump first considered a presidential run in 2011, he sought White’s counsel. “I don’t think it’s the right timing,” she told him.
The timing was obviously right in 2015, when Trump did decide to run for president. In Something Greater, she writes that he asked her to be a bridge to the evangelical community, a critical voting bloc that was far from being supportive of his candidacy. His perceived moral failings—the many wives, the notorious womanizing, his unapologetic vulgarity—all added up to the support of only 3 percent of evangelical leaders and “insiders” surveyed by WORLD magazine in July that year. When Trump appeared in 2015 at the big Christian Right confab in DC, the Values Voter Summit, he got booed.
White describes how she helped improve his standing by creating an evangelical advisory council for the campaign, made up mostly of other televangelists like her, including Franklin Graham, son of the late Billy Graham, and Robert Jeffress, the controversial Dallas megachurch pastor who in 2012, told evangelicals not to vote for Mitt Romney because, as a Mormon, Romney wasn’t a real Christian. White says she even schooled Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner—an Orthodox Jew whom she describes as “quite brilliant”—on the “evangelical landscape.”
Later, when Trump appeared headed toward the GOP nomination, White helped organize a meeting for him with more mainstream evangelical leaders who still had many reservations about his moral character, not to mention concerns about the televangelists he had assembled who were not their natural compatriots. Most of them fell into line, and after Trump became the GOP nominee, White was on hand to give the prime-time benediction on the opening night of the Republican National Convention. After he was elected with the support of more than 80 percent of white evangelical voters, White gave the invocation at his inauguration, becoming the first clergywoman to do so, though not the first televangelist.
Since Trump’s election, White has helped ensure a steady stream of fringe evangelicals and prosperity preachers into the White House. But it’s not clear what exactly she’s been doing to fulfill her governmental duties since her October appointment to the faith initiative. In early December, she convened about 50 evangelicals at the White House for a special briefing that included appearances from Ivanka Trump, Vice President Mike Pence, and Trump himself, upon whom they laid hands and prayed in the Oval Office in the hopes of delivering him from impeachment. But if she’s influencing the Domestic Policy Council on prisoner reentry or humanitarian aid, as required by Trump’s executive order creating her position, the evidence of her work is hard to see. What is much easier to see is how her ministry has benefitted from her White House perch.
“There’s no question that her position with the White House enhances her position and her profile across the country with regard to the increasing her viewership, increasing her income that comes into her organization.”
Pete Evans is the lead investigator with the nonprofit Trinity Foundation, a Christian watchdog group that keeps tabs on televangelists and their spending habits and advocates for people who’ve been duped by them into giving over their last dime. “There’s no question that her position with the White House enhances her position and her profile across the country with regard to the increasing her viewership,” he says, “increasing her income that comes into her organization.”
Much of White’s empire falls under the umbrella of the Paula White Ministries, the name she uses on her website and in fundraising appeals. But legally, Paula White Ministries is just another name for her home church, the City of Destiny Church in Apokpa, Florida, for which she is listed on corporate documents as president. Federal law bars churches from endorsing political candidates. Doing so can result in their losing their tax-exempt status. Yet White’s promotion of Trump now infuses many aspects of her ostensibly nonprofit ministry, which doesn’t seem to have slowed since her official White House appointment.
Last May, White said she would be stepping down as senior pastor at City of Destiny and handing the reins over to her son, Bradley Knight. But White still preaches there regularly—she’s on deck for a “power night” at the church on February 16, with her rock star husband Jonathan Cain. In April, she’ll be hosting a free, three-day conference there called “Unleashed,” that promises attendees an opportunity to hear from her and other evangelical preachers, some of whom are also in Trump’s inner circle.
The Paula White Ministries website is replete with videos of the televangelist with Trump, or of her on TV shows talking about her relationship with Trump, and cheerleading his policies. She even issued a statement supporting his signing of a new trade deal with Mexico and Canada. After Trump became the first president to personally address the anti-abortion March for Life in January, White wrote on her website, “May the grace of God continue to shine on President Trump for his courageous stance for the dignity of all life.” While preaching at a church in California, she said that her access to Trump had allowed her to anoint the White House as “holy ground.” Last summer, another Trump-supporting televangelist, Franklin Graham, called for a special national day of prayer on June 2 to pray for President Trump, which White promoted on her website. She solicited prayer commitments from her fans and promised to personally “take your name to the White House and let our President know you are praying for him and his family.”
Just out of curiosity, I recently made a prayer request through her website, asking her to pray for a family member. I got an email in return promising that White and her prayer intercessors would “deploy the Blood of Jesus on your behalf for your peace.” White also thanked me for “agreeing to pray for President Trump and his family on June 2nd.” Apparently, the form letter hasn’t been updated since last summer. Less than an hour later, I got another email from White asking me to send her a “favor seed” of $50 or more so that she could “Activate supernatural favor” on my behalf. “Favor will make you a household name overnight,” she writes knowingly.
Even as she’s running a nonprofit religious ministry and working a government job, White is once again front and center at many of Trump’s campaign rallies. On January 3, she introduced Trump at the Evangelicals for Trump coalition campaign rally at King Jesus, the same Miami mega church that hosted the Supernatural Ministry School. She told the same story about Trump, too, only this time, instead of rock-concert lighting, the backdrop consisted of American flags, and she stood behind a podium emblazoned with the official presidential seal. C-Span identified her on TV as the “White House spiritual adviser.” People in the audience cheered, “Four more years!”
“When religion and politics get mixed that’s a huge red flag for us,” says Evans. “It’s one of the prohibitions for nonprofits. They’re not supposed to get involved in politics or they risk losing their nonprofit status.” Questions about the nonprofit status of White’s ministries have come up long before she became a regular fixture at the White House. In 2007, White became one of six televangelists investigated by the Senate Finance Committee for potential abuses of their church nonprofit status. Unlike ordinary nonprofits, churches are not required to disclose any of their financial information to the public or the IRS, making their finances extremely opaque and vulnerable to abuses.
Among other things, a Senate report found that White’s personal ministry and the church she ran with her now ex-husband used tax-exempt ministry funds to pay nearly $900,000 one year for the Whites’ waterfront mansion. It paid over a million dollars in salaries to family members and kept the Whites in the air with a private jet. White and her church refused to cooperate with the investigation and in 2011, Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), issued a report outlining the committee’s findings but took no other action. White’s church declared bankruptcy in 2014 after defaulting on $29 million in loans from an evangelical credit union. In 2011, amid controversy, she became senior pastor at the predominantly black City of Destiny—then known as New Destiny Christian Center—after its former pastor died of a drug overdose.
One of the problems with having White working in the White House, Evans notes, is that the agency charged with policing nonprofit churches like hers is the IRS, which Trump oversees as president. And one of Trump’s many promises to evangelicals in exchange for their campaign support is that he would help abolish the Johnson Amendment, the 1950s-era tax code provision that prohibits churches from endorsing political candidates. In 2017, he issued an executive order attempting to scale back its enforcement by the IRS. “When your boss is head of all government agencies, including the IRS, you’re really not risking anything” by cheerleading for the president’s reelection campaign, Evans says. “It really is a huge conflict of interest in my opinion.”
As she moved toward the ecstatic conclusion of her sermon at the Miami Supernatural School, White told the crowd, “I told you about the trailer to the White House because I’m not here by coincidence.” She urged people to pay up so she could begin the laying of hands. “You can’t just bring a gratitude offering. It has to be a First Fruits offering! If it is one week’s salary, if it’s a month. If it’s a day, it’s got to be the whole of something. Quickly! Bring it up—do you need an envelope?” she said, directing people to give the First Fruits to the apostles holding baskets. Others, whose gratitude offering was more meagre, should toss theirs on the floor. “God’s about to do something!” White announced.
Before Trump held his January campaign rally at King Jesus, the church leader and Trump supporter, Pastor Guillermo Maldonado, had to issue a special announcement reassuring his congregation that no undocumented immigrants would be deported if they came to the rally—an indication of the church’s demographics. As the bilingual sermon rose to a climax, White gave a performance that gives a whole new meaning to Ronald Reagan’s nine most terrifying words in the English language: “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”
When every last dime seemed to have been wrung from the audience, White invited all the “barren” women in the room who desired children to come to the front, “because fruitfulness is getting ready to hit this house. God’s about to open your natural womb. God’s gonna open barren places.” She told a story about helping a woman in Hawaii with no uterus and no fallopian tubes give birth. Then she moved to each hopeful woman—some of whom were infertile, others who struggled with repeated miscarriages—and held their hands or touched her belly, telling one that she’d no longer miscarry. One woman fell on the floor. Others cried in expectation of fruitfulness. White wept and spoke in tongues. “Holy, holy, holy, hallelujah,” she cried, and then held a basket of money up high. “It is blessed!”
When it was over, White held a book signing for her newest book release, Something Greater, which is all about her relationship with God. But Something Greater, of course, is really all about her relationship with Trump. His name is mentioned 177 times in 288 pages. Jesus merits just 82.


motherjones--2020-02-20--The Easy Part Is Over for Michael Bloomberg

Michael Bloomberg ’ s campaign for president has been an attempt to reinvent the presidential primary process entirely .
The billionaire former three-term mayor of New York City jumped into a race that was already well underway , skipped the first two contests ( and the third , and the fourth ) , and hatched a scheme to emerge on Super Tuesday as the party ’ s last best hope to defeat Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump .
It was a neat little trick .
Because he didn ’ t have small-dollar donors , he couldn ’ t participate in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he didn ’ t participate in any of the debates , he existed on an entirely different plane from everyone else , above and beyond the Midwestern passive-aggression and canned zingers and the same three questions about Medicare-for-All asked 27 different ways .
And it ’ s been working !
In a few short months , Bloomberg picked up the endorsement of seemingly every mayor of a midsized American city , spent more than $ 350 million dollars on ads and campaign staff , tried to shake a dog ’ s mouth , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ got a lot of people ’ s hairdressers and their friends to think that Barack Obama had endorsed him .
( Spoiler : He hasn ’ t . )
Oh , and at some point along the way , Michael was shortened to just “ Mike.
” You can cut the line , it turns out , but sooner or later the line catches up with you .
On Wednesday , after the debate ’ s donor thresholds were scrapped and Bloomberg qualified for the showdown in Las Vegas , he was hit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s faced during the 2020 presidential primary , but perhaps some of the toughest scrutiny he ’ s faced at any point in his political career .
Sanders , the frontrunner , was more than happy to cast the Wall Street-defending billionaire as the antithesis of his political revolution .
But the other four candidates , led time and again by Elizabeth Warren , took turns highlighting and condemning several decades of comments , policies , and contradictions .
Bloomberg ’ s greatest asset in his run for the presidency has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , while deflecting whatever comes his way—a trait BuzzFeed compared to a “ Trump-like Teflon.
” But up until he took the stage at the Paris casino , it had never really been tested .
Bloomberg didn ’ t do himself many favors .
He stammered a bit and sounded upset when people interrupted him .
If voters are migrating away from Joe Biden because of what they ’ ve seen on the debate stage ( as a good number of them have intimated to me ) , Bloomberg didn ’ t do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But most of his problems were longstanding—the knives were out for his record , and it started almost as soon as the debate was underway .
Sanders got the ball rolling by broaching Bloomberg ’ s embrace of the stop-and-frisk program , which subjected black and Latino New Yorkers to unconstitutional racial profiling and , in many cases , jail time .
It was “ outrageous , ” Sanders said , and—with an eye on the “ electability ” argument Democratic primary voters seem to love—the kind of record that would depress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it was Warren ’ s turn .
“ I ’ d like to talk about who we ’ re running against , ” she said .
“ A billionaire who calls women fat broads and horse-faced lesbians—and no , I ’ m not talking about Donald Trump .
I ’ m talking about Mayor Bloomberg.
” That was a nod to Bloomberg ’ s long record of sexist comments .
Bloomberg didn ’ t have a chance to respond before it was someone else ’ s turn .
“ I don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and say we need someone richer than him in the White House , ” added Amy Klobuchar .
Pete Buttigieg helpfully pointed out that Bloomberg was , at least for a significant chunk of his career , a Republican .
Later , Biden brought the subject back to stop-and-frisk , pointing out that Bloomberg ’ s defense of the policy has been inconsistent , and that the Obama administration had to send someone in to monitor the program—a move that Bloomberg slammed the president for at the time .
Biden called Bloomberg ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ felt as if all these criticisms had been bottled up for months , and maybe years , and then just let loose , it ’ s because , well , they kind of were .
Rich , powerful , mostly white men manage to largely insulate themselves from the harshest kind of criticism or consequences , and Bloomberg has to an unusual degree controlled the messaging about his company and now his campaign .
As my former colleague Nick Baumann noted , it ’ s hard to imagine someone like Bloomberg ever subjects @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t want to suggest that New York politics is easy .
We know most of what we know about Bloomberg because of the doggedness of the New York City press .
But Bloomberg has also spent most of his career cagily evading accountability , and there ’ s a certain fatalism , maybe , that this stuff has just been “ out there ” for a while now and hasn ’ t really hurt him .
Leading up to Wednesday , his campaign had twice issued statements saying that Bloomberg had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about women , but notably never specified what he was supposed to have apologized for .
In any event , a second-hand apology isn ’ t quite the same .
He ’ s certainly never had to face these questions on a debate stage , on national television , from a woman who desperately wants the same job he does .
And so the most intense moment of the night came a few minutes after the argument about stop-and-frisk , when Warren returned to the question of Bloomberg ’ s treatment of women @ @ @ @ @ @ @ women actually liked working at his company and Warren—who has been trying to get this exact story to stick for a while now—really let him have it .
“ I hope you heard what his defense was : ‘ I ’ ve been nice to some women , ’ ” she said .
Warren brought up the fact that women who worked for Bloomberg are blocked from speaking out because of restrictive non-disclosure agreements , challenged him to release them to speak freely , and when Bloomberg said that complaints of sexism could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ didn ’ t like a joke I told , ” she landed what my colleague Pema Levy called “ the night ’ s biggest blow ” : “ The question is : Are the women bound by being muzzled by you ?
And you could release them from that immediately .
… We are not going to defeat Donald Trump with a man who has who knows how many non-disclosure agreements and the drip , drip , drip of stories of women saying they have been harassed and discriminated against.
” In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wednesday , most of the candidates who would later take the stage found their way to the Palms resort and casino , where members of the powerful Culinary Union were picketing the resort management in the hopes of coaxing them to the table for contract talks .
It got to be sort of a weird little routine : A candidate would show up ( Warren brought donuts ) and all of a sudden the rest of the picket line would thin out and a mob of cameras and reporters would take a break @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far end of the line to converge as if summoned by some irresistible force .
The workers continued marching while the candidates did their rotation and then , a few minutes later , some other candidate would take their turn and the cycle would repeat .
Bloomberg wasn ’ t a part of this , of course , because he isn ’ t even competing in Nevada .
His absence , and at the same time , his looming presence , has felt like dark matter , giving the first-in-the-west caucuses a weird @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exerting a force on the proceedings that ’ s invisible to the electorate here .
But after Wednesday , Bloomberg isn ’ t just an abstract polling average and a blank check-book ; he ’ s a real candidate with a whole lot of weaknesses .
And come tomorrow , a whole lot of bruises .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Michael Bloomberg’s campaign for president has been an attempt to reinvent the presidential primary process entirely. The billionaire and former three-term mayor of New York City jumped into a race that was already well underway, skipped the first two contests (and the third, and the fourth), and hatched a scheme to emerge on Super Tuesday as the party’s last best hope to defeat Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump.
It was a neat little trick. Because he didn’t have small-dollar donors, he couldn’t participate in any of the debates, and because he didn’t participate in any of the debates, he existed on an entirely different plane from everyone else, above and beyond the Midwestern passive aggression and canned zingers and the same three questions about Medicare for All asked 27 different ways. And it’s been working! In a few short months, Bloomberg picked up the endorsement of seemingly every mayor of a midsize American city, spent more than $350 million on ads and campaign staff, tried to shake a dog’s mouth, started a Weird Twitter account, and got a lot of people’s hairdressers and their friends to think that Barack Obama had endorsed him. (Spoiler: He hasn’t.) Oh, and at some point along the way, Michael was shortened to just “Mike.”
You can cut the line, it turns out, but sooner or later the line catches up with you.
On Wednesday, after the debate’s donor thresholds were scrapped and Bloomberg qualified for the showdown in Las Vegas, he was hit with not just the harshest scrutiny he’s faced during the 2020 presidential primary, but perhaps some of the toughest scrutiny he’s faced at any point in his political career. Sanders, the frontrunner, was more than happy to cast the Wall Street–defending billionaire as the antithesis of his political revolution. But the other four candidates, led time and again by Elizabeth Warren, took turns highlighting and condemning several decades of comments, policies, and contradictions. Bloomberg’s greatest asset in his run for the presidency has been the ability to air his own message, while deflecting whatever comes his way—a trait BuzzFeed compared to a “Trump-like Teflon.” But up until he took the stage at the Paris casino, it had never really been tested.
If it felt as if all these criticisms had been bottled up for months, and maybe years, and then just let loose, it’s because, well, they kind of were.
Bloomberg didn’t do himself many favors. He stammered a bit and sounded upset when people interrupted him. If voters are migrating away from Joe Biden because of what they’ve seen on the debate stage (as a good number of them have intimated to me), Bloomberg didn’t do much to position himself as the next in line. But most of his problems were longstanding—the knives were out for his record, and it started almost as soon as the debate was underway. Sanders got the ball rolling by broaching Bloomberg’s embrace of the stop-and-frisk program, which subjected black and Latino New Yorkers to unconstitutional racial profiling and, in many cases, jail time. It was “outrageous,” Sanders said, and—with an eye on the “electability” argument Democratic primary voters seem to love—the kind of record that would depress turnout against Trump this fall.
Next, it was Warren’s turn. “I’d like to talk about who we’re running against,” she said. “A billionaire who calls women fat broads and horse-faced lesbians—and no, I’m not talking about Donald Trump. I’m talking about Mayor Bloomberg.”
That was a nod to Bloomberg’s long record of sexist comments. Bloomberg didn’t have a chance to respond before it was someone else’s turn. “I don’t think we look at Donald Trump and say we need someone richer than him in the White House,” added Amy Klobuchar. Pete Buttigieg helpfully pointed out that Bloomberg was, at least for a significant chunk of his career, a Republican. Later, Biden brought the subject back to stop and frisk, pointing out that Bloomberg’s defense of the policy has been inconsistent, and that the Obama administration had to send someone in to monitor the program—a move that Bloomberg slammed the president for at the time. Biden called Bloomberg’s policy “abhorrent.”
If it felt as if all these criticisms had been bottled up for months and maybe years, and then just let loose, it’s because, well, they kind of were. Rich, powerful, mostly white men manage to largely insulate themselves from the harshest kind of criticism or consequences, and Bloomberg has to an unusual degree controlled the messaging about his company and now his campaign. As my former colleague Nick Baumann noted, it’s hard to imagine someone like Bloomberg ever subjects himself to such sustained criticism.
I genuinely wonder whether Bloomberg has ever faced this kind of unrelenting criticism from people in the same room as him. — Nick Baumann (@NickBaumann) February 20, 2020
I don’t want to suggest that New York politics is easy. We know most of what we know about Bloomberg because of the doggedness of the New York City press. But Bloomberg has also spent most of his career cagily evading accountability, and there’s a certain fatalism, maybe, that this stuff has just been “out there” for a while now and hasn’t really hurt him. Leading up to Wednesday, his campaign had twice issued statements saying that Bloomberg had apologized for some of his crude remarks about women, but notably never specified what he was supposed to have apologized for. In any event, a secondhand apology isn’t quite the same.
He’s certainly never had to face these questions on a debate stage, on national television, from a woman who desperately wants the same job he does. So the most intense moment of the night came a few minutes after the argument about stop and frisk, when Warren returned to the question of Bloomberg’s treatment of women. Bloomberg mumbled about how many women actually liked working at his company, and Warren—who has been trying to get this exact story to stick for a while now—really let him have it.
“I hope you heard what his defense was: I’ve been nice to some women,” she said.
Warren brought up the fact that women who worked for Bloomberg are blocked from speaking out because of restrictive nondisclosure agreements, challenged him to release them to speak freely, and when Bloomberg said that complaints of sexism could simply be chalked up to people who “didn’t like a joke I told,” she landed what my colleague Pema Levy called “the night’s biggest blow”: “The question is: Are the women bound by being muzzled by you? And you could release them from that immediately…We are not going to defeat Donald Trump with a man who has who knows how many nondisclosure agreements and the drip, drip, drip of stories of women saying they have been harassed and discriminated against.”
Bloomberg has also spent most of his career cagily evading accountability, and there’s a certain fatalism, maybe, that this stuff has just been “out there” for a while now and hasn’t really hurt him.
In the quiet hours before the debate on Wednesday, most of the candidates who would take the stage found their way to the Palms resort and casino, where members of the powerful Culinary Union were picketing the resort management in the hopes of coaxing them to the table for contract talks. It got to be sort of a weird little routine: A candidate would show up (Warren brought doughnuts) and all of a sudden the rest of the picket line would thin out and a mob of cameras and reporters would take a break from filming the dancing workers at the far end of the line to converge as if summoned by some irresistible force. The workers continued marching while the candidates did their rotation and then, a few minutes later, some other candidate would take their turn and the cycle would repeat.
Bloomberg wasn’t part of this, of course, because he isn’t even competing in Nevada. His absence, and at the same time his looming presence, has felt like dark matter, giving the first-in-the-West caucuses a weird feeling, like something very important is exerting a force on the proceedings that’s invisible to the electorate here. But after Wednesday, Bloomberg isn’t just an abstract polling average and a blank checkbook; he’s a real candidate with a whole lot of weaknesses. And come tomorrow, a whole lot of bruises.


motherjones--2020-02-20--No, Amy Klobuchar Is Not Responsible for Minnesota’s High Voter Turnout

In her opening shot at Wednesday ’ s Democratic primary debate , Sen. Amy Klobuchar ( D-Minn. ) claimed credit for Minnesota ’ s high voter turnout , citing it as evidence of her ability to beat Donald Trump .
“ I am the one on this stage that had the highest voter turnout of any state in the country when I led the ticket , ” she said .
It ’ s true that Minnesota topped the list for voter turnout nationally in 2018 when Klobuchar ran for re-election .
But Minnesota voters also led the country in voter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t on the ticket .
( That year , Minnesota regained its regular position on top of the chart from a blip in 2014 , when it fell to sixth . )
“ For nine election cycles in a row , Minnesota voters turned out to the polls more than any other state in the nation , ” MinnPost reported in 2016 .
“ In fact , the state actually holds the all-time record for turnout , when 78 percent of registered voters showed up to cast a ballot in the 2004 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in voter turnout since 1980 , according to MinnPost .
Klobuchar wasn ’ t elected to statewide office until 2006 .
Minnesota ’ s same-day registration and accessibility of early voting are two major reasons for the state ’ s consistently high turnout .
Another is the voter turnout program in the Minneapolis-based 5th congressional district pioneered by former Rep. Keith Ellison .
As my colleague Tim Murphy reported in 2017 : Ellison ’ s district is so blue he hardly needs to campaign to ensure reelection .
But he views constant voter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as essential to his agenda .
He cites research showing that just 58 percent of self-identified liberals vote , versus 78 percent of self-identified conservatives .
If a state party can juice that 58 percent just a little , he argues , it can defeat ballot initiatives and keep its grip on statewide offices .
Day credits Ellison ’ s organizers with beating back a Republican voter ID initiative in 2012 .
Michael Brodkorb , a Republican operative who unearthed some of the most damaging stories about Ellison in 2006 , views @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : “ He turned political organizing into what I think most people think political organizing is.
” Voting-rights organizers in Minnesota will tell you they still have work to do , including expanding voting rights to people on probation or parole .
But what Minnesota ’ s doing is clearly working .
It just has less to do with Klobuchar than she would like you to believe .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
In her opening shot at Wednesday’s Democratic primary debate, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) claimed credit for Minnesota’s high voter turnout, citing it as evidence of her ability to beat Donald Trump. “I am the one on this stage that had the highest voter turnout of any state in the country when I led the ticket,” she said.
It’s true that Minnesota topped the list for voter turnout nationally in 2018 when Klobuchar ran for re-election. But Minnesota voters also led the country in voter turnout in 2016, when Klobuchar wasn’t on the ticket. (That year, Minnesota regained its regular position on top of the chart from a blip in 2014, when it fell to sixth.)
“For nine election cycles in a row, Minnesota voters turned out to the polls more than any other state in the nation,” MinnPost reported in 2016. “In fact, the state actually holds the all-time record for turnout, when 78 percent of registered voters showed up to cast a ballot in the 2004 election.” Minnesota has led the nation in voter turnout since 1980, according to MinnPost. Klobuchar wasn’t elected to statewide office until 2006.
Minnesota’s same-day registration and accessibility of early voting are two major reasons for the state’s consistently high turnout. Another is the voter turnout program in the Minneapolis-based 5th congressional district pioneered by former Rep. Keith Ellison. As my colleague Tim Murphy reported in 2017:
Ellison’s district is so blue he hardly needs to campaign to ensure reelection. But he views constant voter contact, during the election and afterward, as essential to his agenda. He cites research showing that just 58 percent of self-identified liberals vote, versus 78 percent of self-identified conservatives. If a state party can juice that 58 percent just a little, he argues, it can defeat ballot initiatives and keep its grip on statewide offices. Day credits Ellison’s organizers with beating back a Republican voter ID initiative in 2012. Michael Brodkorb, a Republican operative who unearthed some of the most damaging stories about Ellison in 2006, views Ellison’s get-out-the-vote machine with awe: “He turned political organizing into what I think most people think political organizing is.”
Voting-rights organizers in Minnesota will tell you they still have work to do, including expanding voting rights to people on probation or parole. But what Minnesota’s doing is clearly working. It just has less to do with Klobuchar than she would like you to believe.


motherjones--2020-02-20--Julian Assange and Roger Stone Are Perfect Examples of How Trump Uses His Pardon Power

A lawyer for Julian Assange claims that former Republican Rep. Dana Rohrabacher told the WikiLeaks founder in 2017 that he would receive a pardon from President Donald Trump if he claimed Russia was not the source of hacked Democratic emails that the group published in 2016 .
The Assange lawyer also says the deal was authorized by Trump .
The claim that Trump was aware of Rohrabacher ’ s proposal may well be false .
The former California Congressman and the White House quickly denied it .
And Assange has previously made multiple false assertions related to WikiLeaks ’ release @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Assange ’ s account , much of which was already public knowledge , highlights ongoing efforts by Trump and his supporters to use the prospect of a presidential pardon to convince allies and others facing prosecution not to divulge information damaging to the president .
At a preliminary hearing held Wednesday in London as part of Assange ’ s fight against extradition to the US , where he faces charges related to WikiLeaks ’ 2010 publication of diplomatic cables and other sensitive information , Assange attorney Edward Fitzgerald described an offer Rohrabacher made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in London .
According to multiple media outlets , Fitzgerald cited a statement from another Assange lawyer , Jennifer Robinson , which states Rohrabacher said that “ on instructions from the president , he was offering a pardon or some other way out , if Mr Assange…said Russia had nothing to do with the DNC leaks.
” Robinson claims she was present when Rohrabacher made the offer .
The judge overseeing the case ruled the evidence admissible .
In a subsequent tweet on Wednesday , WikiLeaks said : “ The witness statement is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ [ defense ] to come.
” Assange ’ s claim partly tracks with Rohrabacher ’ s own account .
He told the Wall Street Journal in 2017 that he offered a pardon “ or something like that ” to Assange in exchange for evidence that proved Russia was not behind the 2016 hack of the Democratic National Committee .
At the time , Assange had already denied Russia was WikiLeaks ’ source , contrary to the unanimous conclusion of US intelligence agencies .
He never provided evidence for his claim .
He also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Russia and right wing Americans , that Seth Rich , a DNC staffer who was murdered in 2016 , was the source of the emails .
In statement issued Wednesday , Rohrabacher , who was defeated in 2018 , said that he had told Assange that “ if he could provide me information and evidence about who actually gave him the DNC emails , I would then call on President Trump to pardon him , ” and that he had later alerted then-White House Chief of Staff John Kelly to his efforts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ offer Julian Assange anything from the President because I had not spoken with the President about this issue at all.
” On Wednesday , White House spokeswoman , Stephanie Grisham told reporters that Trump “ barely knows Dana Rohrabacher other than he ’ s an ex-congressman , ” and has “ never spoken to him on this subject or almost any subject.
” But whether or not Trump knew of this pardon proposal , Rohrabacher ’ s effort is one in a long list of apparent efforts by Trump and his allies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to sway people with potentially damaging knowledge about contacts between the Trump campaign , Russia , and WikiLeaks in 2016 .
Assange ’ s courtroom claim came the day after Trump granted clemency to 11 people , including many he knows personally or whose pardons were advocated by people who donated to Trump and Republican fundraising committees .
These and prior mid-term pardons issued by Trump have been faulted as signals to encourage Trump associates still facing prosecution or prison sentences not to cooperate with investigations into investigations into Trump ’ s conduct @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for him to pardon his former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn , who awaits sentencing for lying to FBI investigators about his contacts with Russia ’ s ambassador .
In one of a barrage of public statements apparently intended to influence the Thursday sentencing of his longtime political adviser Roger Stone for making false statements to Congress , obstruction of justice and witness tampering , Trump this week indicated that he might pardon Stone .
“ We ’ re going to see what happens , ” he told reporters when asked about pardoning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Trump for a pardon . )
Trump has a personal stake in Stone ’ s sentencing .
Stone ’ s trial included testimony that Stone had personally briefed Trump and other campaign aides on what Stone claimed was inside knowledge he had regarding WikiLeaks ’ plans for the release of Democratic emails .
The Trump campaign , Special Counsel Robert Mueller ’ s report found , sought information on the WikiLeaks releases and tried to capitalize on them .
In written answers sent to Mueller in 2018 , Trump , while admitting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” with Stone in the summer of 2016 , claimed that he did not recall speaking to Stone about WikiLeaks or to recall anything at all about their calls .
But Rick Gates , a former Trump campaign aide who cooperated with Mueller , testified during Stone ’ s trial that he had overheard a phone conversation in which Stone seemed to give Trump information on WikiLeaks ’ plans .
This suggests that Trump , whose public references to WikiLeaks on the campaign trail show he was closely monitoring their email releases , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ never to cooperate with prosecutors , winning praise from Trump .
Stone has also worked to secure a pardon for Assange .
“ I am working with others to get JA a blanket pardon , ” Stone texted Randy Credico , a former radio host who Stone in congressional testimony had falsely labeled his intermediary to WikiLeaks , early 2018 .
“ It ’ s very real and very possible .
Don ’ t fuck it up.
” Special Counsel Robert Mueller ’ s report last year detailed efforts by Trump and his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ witnesses to stay quiet .
In public and private messages , Trump and his emissaries suggested to Flynn , Stone , Flynn , Michael Cohen , ex-Trump campaign boss Paul Manafort , and former Trump campaign aide Rick Gates that they could receive pardons if they declined to cooperate against the president .
Assange ’ s claims Wednesday show how widespread the pattern is .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
A lawyer for Julian Assange claims that former Republican Rep. Dana Rohrabacher told the WikiLeaks founder in 2017 that he would receive a pardon from President Donald Trump if he claimed Russia was not the source of hacked Democratic emails that the group published in 2016. The Assange lawyer also says the deal was authorized by Trump.
The claim that Trump was aware of Rohrabacher’s proposal may well be false. The former California Congressman and the White House quickly denied it. And Assange has previously made multiple false assertions related to WikiLeaks’ release of Democratic emails in 2016. But Assange’s account, much of which was already public knowledge, highlights ongoing efforts by Trump and his supporters to use the prospect of a presidential pardon to convince allies and others facing prosecution not to divulge information damaging to the president.
At a preliminary hearing held Wednesday in London as part of Assange’s fight against extradition to the US, where he faces charges related to WikiLeaks’ 2010 publication of diplomatic cables and other sensitive information, Assange attorney Edward Fitzgerald described an offer Rohrabacher made while visiting Assange at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. According to multiple media outlets, Fitzgerald cited a statement from another Assange lawyer, Jennifer Robinson, which states Rohrabacher said that “on instructions from the president, he was offering a pardon or some other way out, if Mr Assange…said Russia had nothing to do with the DNC leaks.” Robinson claims she was present when Rohrabacher made the offer. The judge overseeing the case ruled the evidence admissible. In a subsequent tweet on Wednesday, WikiLeaks said: “The witness statement is one of the many bombshells from the [defense] to come.”
Assange’s claim partly tracks with Rohrabacher’s own account. He told the Wall Street Journal in 2017 that he offered a pardon “or something like that” to Assange in exchange for evidence that proved Russia was not behind the 2016 hack of the Democratic National Committee. At the time, Assange had already denied Russia was WikiLeaks’ source, contrary to the unanimous conclusion of US intelligence agencies. He never provided evidence for his claim. He also fanned a baseless conspiracy theory, pushed by Russia and right wing Americans, that Seth Rich, a DNC staffer who was murdered in 2016, was the source of the emails.
In statement issued Wednesday, Rohrabacher, who was defeated in 2018, said that he had told Assange that “if he could provide me information and evidence about who actually gave him the DNC emails, I would then call on President Trump to pardon him,” and that he had later alerted then-White House Chief of Staff John Kelly to his efforts. But Rohrabacher said he did not “offer Julian Assange anything from the President because I had not spoken with the President about this issue at all.” On Wednesday, White House spokeswoman, Stephanie Grisham told reporters that Trump “barely knows Dana Rohrabacher other than he’s an ex-congressman,” and has “never spoken to him on this subject or almost any subject.”
But whether or not Trump knew of this pardon proposal, Rohrabacher’s effort is one in a long list of apparent efforts by Trump and his allies to use the prospect of a pardon to sway people with potentially damaging knowledge about contacts between the Trump campaign, Russia, and WikiLeaks in 2016.
Assange’s courtroom claim came the day after Trump granted clemency to 11 people, including many he knows personally or whose pardons were advocated by people who donated to Trump and Republican fundraising committees. These and prior mid-term pardons issued by Trump have been faulted as signals to encourage Trump associates still facing prosecution or prison sentences not to cooperate with investigations into investigations into Trump’s conduct. Trump on Thursday retweeted a call for him to pardon his former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, who awaits sentencing for lying to FBI investigators about his contacts with Russia’s ambassador.
In one of a barrage of public statements apparently intended to influence the Thursday sentencing of his longtime political adviser Roger Stone for making false statements to Congress, obstruction of justice and witness tampering, Trump this week indicated that he might pardon Stone. “We’re going to see what happens,” he told reporters when asked about pardoning Stone. (Stone has already appealed to Trump for a pardon.)
Trump has a personal stake in Stone’s sentencing. Stone’s trial included testimony that Stone had personally briefed Trump and other campaign aides on what Stone claimed was inside knowledge he had regarding WikiLeaks’ plans for the release of Democratic emails. The Trump campaign, Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report found, sought information on the WikiLeaks releases and tried to capitalize on them. In written answers sent to Mueller in 2018, Trump, while admitting he spoke “from time to time” with Stone in the summer of 2016, claimed that he did not recall speaking to Stone about WikiLeaks or to recall anything at all about their calls. But Rick Gates, a former Trump campaign aide who cooperated with Mueller, testified during Stone’s trial that he had overheard a phone conversation in which Stone seemed to give Trump information on WikiLeaks’ plans. This suggests that Trump, whose public references to WikiLeaks on the campaign trail show he was closely monitoring their email releases, lied to Mueller. Stone has vowed never to cooperate with prosecutors, winning praise from Trump.
Stone has also worked to secure a pardon for Assange. “I am working with others to get JA a blanket pardon,” Stone texted Randy Credico, a former radio host who Stone in congressional testimony had falsely labeled his intermediary to WikiLeaks, early 2018. “It’s very real and very possible. Don’t fuck it up.”
Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report last year detailed efforts by Trump and his lawyers to dangle pardons to encourage potential witnesses to stay quiet. In public and private messages, Trump and his emissaries suggested to Flynn, Stone, Flynn, Michael Cohen, ex-Trump campaign boss Paul Manafort, and former Trump campaign aide Rick Gates that they could receive pardons if they declined to cooperate against the president.
Assange’s claims Wednesday show how widespread the pattern is.


motherjones--2020-02-19--Mike Bloomberg Is Way Richer Than People Realize

Michael Bloomberg is rich .
Really , really rich .
With $ 62.8 billion to his name , the former @ @ @ @ @ CEO of the eponymous Bloomberg L.P. has a greater net worth—a far greater net worth—than @ @ @ @ @ candidates combined .
( Tom Steyer ’ s $ 1.6 billion ?
That ’ s @ @ @ @ @ s a fortune that is more than 20 times greater than estimates of President Donald @ @ @ @ @ alone could pay for NASA ’ s plans to send astronauts to the moon once @ @ @ @ @ have enough to buy Fox News ( or at least , all Fox Corporation stock @ @ @ @ @ ’ s nearly impossible to conceptualize just how much money Bloomberg has .
So we @ @ @ @ @ show the scale of the latecomer Democratic presidential candidate ’ s wealth .
Get ready @

“A VOICE OF REASON.” “A DAILY DOSE OF SANITY.”
“A daily dose of sanity.” “Like chatting with a friend who actually knows what they’re talking about.” That’s how readers describe our free Mother Jones Daily newsletter. See why: Sign up today to get reporting that helps you cut through the noise, plus deep dives on underreported topics.
“Like chatting with a friend who actually knows what they’re talking about.” That’s how readers describe our free Mother Jones Daily newsletter. See why: Sign up today to get reporting that helps you cut through the noise, plus deep dives on underreported topics.
Close Thank you for subscribing!
By signing up, you agree to our privacy policy and terms of use, and to receive messages from Mother Jones and our partners.


motherjones--2020-02-19--Why Mark Zuckerberg’s Plea for Regulation is an Enormous Cop-Out

In October , when the Trump campaign began running a slew of ads spreading falsehoods about then–Democratic presidential frontrunner Joe Biden and his son ’ s business dealings in Ukraine , Facebook opted to do nothing , citing policies allowing politicians to include false claims in political ads that they pay the platform to spread .
Since then , the company has repeatedly suggested that it would like to take action against such content , but won ’ t until the government steps in and offers regulations that would be uniform across the industry .
On Saturday , company CEO @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Munich Security Conference , saying that “ we don ’ t want private companies making so many decision-balancing social equities without democratic processes .
I do think that there should be regulation in the West on harmful content…there ’ s a question about which framework you use.
” The argument neatly fits a longstanding pattern of tech companies wading into new , potentially destructive areas seeking revenue , only to follow up by saying they ’ ll punt on making difficult ethical decisions that could hurt their bottom line until governments step in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year Twitter banned all political advertising , and Google banned targeted political advertising , just last month , Facebook reiterated that it would not follow those major rivals , and would continue to let politicians lie in political advertisements .
At the time , Rob Leathern , Facebook ’ s director of product management , explained the company ’ s reasoning : “ Ultimately , we don ’ t think decisions about political ads should be made by private companies , which is why we are arguing for regulation that would apply across @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Frankly , we believe the sooner Facebook and other companies are subject to democratically accountable rules on this the better.
” While its deeply ironic the platform says that it ’ s interested in being “ democratically accountable ” as it has created an apparatus so powerful that it has in effect become its own digital government whose rules are subject to no vote and accountable to no constituency , the company isn ’ t the first tech giant to pursue profit while largely outsourcing responsibility .
In December 2018 , for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a post acknowledging the potential for his company ’ s facial recognization products to exacerbate discrimination and erode privacy , and asking the government to step in .
“ We don ’ t believe that the world will be best served by a commercial race to the bottom , with tech companies forced to choose between social responsibility and market success , ” he wrote .
Uber , Lyft , and Airbnb pioneered an aggressive version of this playbook by strong-arming their way into new cities , ignoring existing taxi and hotel laws @ @ @ @ @ @ @ off regulators .
Only after that would they typically agree to work with cities on some type of regulatory agreement .
The strategy lets technology companies get away with committing a sort of regulatory arbitrage where they figure out how to make money by using technology to circumvent laws in ways that were extremely difficult for policymakers to anticipate back when the existing legal frameworks were created .
Uber has created urban traffic congestion , dragged its feet on background checks for its drivers ( which might have contributed to it missing drivers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and figured out how to pay its workers effectively below minimum wage .
The mess that Facebook is making and asking lawmakers to clean up isn ’ t all that different from Uber blowing past municipal regulations and then leaving lawmakers to figure out how to address all the new issues it created .
But instead of messing with urban planning , Facebook has enabled the flow of disinformation and misinformation , creating new means to mislead and manipulate people .
Of course , governments have enough to do , and don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ problems onto them .
Sometimes this is inevitable with new technologies .
But companies like Uber , Facebook , and Microsoft have made it part of their business models : Do whatever you want and leave regulators to work out the potential kinks .
It ’ s possible to strike a balance between asking for regulation and making difficult , principled decisions in the meantime .
After Microsoft asked for the government to step in on federal regulation , it denied at least one law enforcement agency ’ s request to use facial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Twitter ’ s and Google ’ s recent actions show that companies can make changes to political advertising policies while waiting for lawmakers to come through on their promises of regulating them .
If government does move toward greater regulation of online political advertisement , it ’ s not as though Facebook is going to sit back and just watch the democratic process play out .
It will send its army of well-paid lobbyists to shape the policy .
This way , Facebook still likely gets a strong say in what happens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ let the government do it .
Facebook can also rest assured that the government ’ s hands will be more tied than its own : Lawmakers would have to contend with constitutional restrictions that Facebook , as a private company , could ignore .
Facebook , whether intentionally or not , gave a deeper glimpse into its rationale behind sticking to its current positions last month when Facebook Vice President Brian Bosworth said in a memo leaked to the New York Times that not changing Facebook ’ s current policies “ may very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2020 presidential election .
Knowing this , he said , “ I find myself desperately wanting to pull any lever at my disposal to avoid the same result , ” but that he wouldn ’ t out of a sense of responsibility to be fair and impartial .
What Bosworth , and maybe all of Facebook , fails to realize is that inaction to maintain the status quo is a form of partiality .
Specifically , in the context of political advertising , it ’ s a form of partiality that clearly benefits @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lie and use other underhanded tactics—a side that , in 2020 , is easy to identify .
Putting aside his campaign , in the last presidential election Trump alone told some version of a lie or “ untruth ” every 3.25 minutes according to analysis conducted by Politico in 2016 .
While Facebook has championed transparency as a tool to mitigate the worst effects of harmful political ads , by leaving its political ad targeting tools intact , groups can spread misleading or outright false information on the platform without anyone noticing .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ chief security officer , disagrees with Facebook ’ s inaction and has explained the problems with its transparency in an interview with the Columbia Journalism Review ’ s Mathew Ingram .
“ In theory , the transparency efforts by a handful of companies should reduce the impact of micro-targeting , since those ads are no longer secret from the opposing party and media , ” Stamos said .
“ In practice , we are likely to see tens of thousands of A/B tested and programmatically generated ads out of the Trump campaign in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or his opponent to correct the record when each is only seen by a tiny number of people is limited.
” In other words , no matter how much transparency Facebook provides , the zone will be so flooded that most ads , deceptive or not , will never be parsed .
Wanting regulation is fine , but doing nothing in the meanwhile isn ’ t the same as being impartial .
It ’ s tipping the scales and impeding the mechanisms of “ democratic accountability ” that Facebook claims it wants to @ @

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
In October, when the Trump campaign began running a slew of ads spreading falsehoods about then–Democratic presidential frontrunner Joe Biden and his son’s business dealings in Ukraine, Facebook opted to do nothing, citing policies allowing politicians to include false claims in political ads that they pay the platform to spread.
The company isn’t the first tech giant to pursue profit while largely outsourcing responsibility.
Since then, the company has repeatedly suggested that it would like to take action against such content, but won’t until the government steps in and offers regulations that would be uniform across the industry. On Saturday, company CEO Mark Zuckerberg reinforced this stance at the Munich Security Conference, saying that “we don’t want private companies making so many decision-balancing social equities without democratic processes. I do think that there should be regulation in the West on harmful content…there’s a question about which framework you use.”
The argument neatly fits a longstanding pattern of tech companies wading into new, potentially destructive areas seeking revenue, only to follow up by saying they’ll punt on making difficult ethical decisions that could hurt their bottom line until governments step in and force them to.
Though last year Twitter banned all political advertising, and Google banned targeted political advertising, just last month, Facebook reiterated that it would not follow those major rivals, and would continue to let politicians lie in political advertisements. At the time, Rob Leathern, Facebook’s director of product management, explained the company’s reasoning: “Ultimately, we don’t think decisions about political ads should be made by private companies, which is why we are arguing for regulation that would apply across the industry,” he wrote. “Frankly, we believe the sooner Facebook and other companies are subject to democratically accountable rules on this the better.”
While its deeply ironic the platform says that it’s interested in being “democratically accountable” as it has created an apparatus so powerful that it has in effect become its own digital government whose rules are subject to no vote and accountable to no constituency, the company isn’t the first tech giant to pursue profit while largely outsourcing responsibility.
In December 2018, for example, Microsoft President Brad Smith wrote a post acknowledging the potential for his company’s facial recognization products to exacerbate discrimination and erode privacy, and asking the government to step in. “We don’t believe that the world will be best served by a commercial race to the bottom, with tech companies forced to choose between social responsibility and market success,” he wrote.
Uber, Lyft, and Airbnb pioneered an aggressive version of this playbook by strong-arming their way into new cities, ignoring existing taxi and hotel laws and reshaping the business environment while fending off regulators. Only after that would they typically agree to work with cities on some type of regulatory agreement.
If government does move toward greater regulation, it’s not as though Facebook is going to sit back and just watch.
The strategy lets technology companies get away with committing a sort of regulatory arbitrage where they figure out how to make money by using technology to circumvent laws in ways that were extremely difficult for policymakers to anticipate back when the existing legal frameworks were created. Uber has created urban traffic congestion, dragged its feet on background checks for its drivers (which might have contributed to it missing drivers who have sexually assaulted riders), and figured out how to pay its workers effectively below minimum wage.
The mess that Facebook is making and asking lawmakers to clean up isn’t all that different from Uber blowing past municipal regulations and then leaving lawmakers to figure out how to address all the new issues it created. But instead of messing with urban planning, Facebook has enabled the flow of disinformation and misinformation, creating new means to mislead and manipulate people.
Of course, governments have enough to do, and don’t need multibillion-dollar corporations offloading new public problems onto them. Sometimes this is inevitable with new technologies. But companies like Uber, Facebook, and Microsoft have made it part of their business models: Do whatever you want and leave regulators to work out the potential kinks.
It’s possible to strike a balance between asking for regulation and making difficult, principled decisions in the meantime. After Microsoft asked for the government to step in on federal regulation, it denied at least one law enforcement agency’s request to use facial recognition software in cars and body cameras. Twitter’s and Google’s recent actions show that companies can make changes to political advertising policies while waiting for lawmakers to come through on their promises of regulating them.
If government does move toward greater regulation of online political advertisement, it’s not as though Facebook is going to sit back and just watch the democratic process play out. It will send its army of well-paid lobbyists to shape the policy. This way, Facebook still likely gets a strong say in what happens, but gets to say that it let the government do it. Facebook can also rest assured that the government’s hands will be more tied than its own: Lawmakers would have to contend with constitutional restrictions that Facebook, as a private company, could ignore.
Inaction to maintain the status quo is a form of partiality.
Facebook, whether intentionally or not, gave a deeper glimpse into its rationale behind sticking to its current positions last month when Facebook Vice President Andrew Bosworth said in a memo leaked to the New York Times that not changing Facebook’s current policies “may very well” lead to Trump winning the 2020 presidential election. Knowing this, he said, “I find myself desperately wanting to pull any lever at my disposal to avoid the same result,” but that he wouldn’t out of a sense of responsibility to be fair and impartial.
What Bosworth, and maybe all of Facebook, fails to realize is that inaction to maintain the status quo is a form of partiality. Specifically, in the context of political advertising, it’s a form of partiality that clearly benefits the side that is more willing to lie and use other underhanded tactics—a side that, in 2020, is easy to identify. Putting aside his campaign, in the last presidential election Trump alone told some version of a lie or “untruth” every 3.25 minutes according to analysis conducted by Politico in 2016.
While Facebook has championed transparency as a tool to mitigate the worst effects of harmful political ads, by leaving its political ad targeting tools intact, groups can spread misleading or outright false information on the platform without anyone noticing. Alex Stamos, Facebook’s former chief security officer, disagrees with Facebook’s inaction and has explained the problems with its transparency in an interview with the Columbia Journalism Review’s Mathew Ingram. “In theory, the transparency efforts by a handful of companies should reduce the impact of micro-targeting, since those ads are no longer secret from the opposing party and media,” Stamos said. “In practice, we are likely to see tens of thousands of A/B tested and programmatically generated ads out of the Trump campaign in 2020 and the ability for the media or his opponent to correct the record when each is only seen by a tiny number of people is limited.” In other words, no matter how much transparency Facebook provides, the zone will be so flooded that most ads, deceptive or not, will never be parsed.
Wanting regulation is fine, but doing nothing in the meanwhile isn’t the same as being impartial. It’s tipping the scales and impeding the mechanisms of “democratic accountability” that Facebook claims it wants to maintain.