motherjones--2020-12-31--Why Do Conservatives Keep Posting Pictures of Awful Food?

On Christmas Eve , Senator John Cornyn ( R-Texas ) posted a picture of some awful-looking meat slathered with an ambiguous , thick red sauce that looked as if it had congealed before being scraped off some leftover spaghetti .
Apparently , this was a Cornyn “ brisket family tradition.
” How the Cornyns arrived at this tradition is unclear and especially baffling given that he represents a state that is the undisputed barbecue capital of the country , and that he lives in Austin , arguably the barbecue capital of the barbecue state .
Repulsed people on Twitter wondered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for his lurid Christmas Eve “ traditional ” family meal .
This is not an isolated incident , however .
The brisket episode fits into a larger , inexplicable pattern of conservatives posting gross food that they , presumably , are both proud of and about to eat .
In July of 2019 , former Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker tweeted out “ Veggie pizza on the lake !
Mmmmmm !
” above an image of the loosest possible definition of pizza : uncooked cheese , raw broccoli , and tomatoes on top of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or perhaps an undercooked pie shell smothered with ranch dressing .
That February , former George W. Bush White House Press Secretary Dana Perino tweeted a picture of her homemade queso that bore a striking resemblance to cattle manure runoff .
In trying to understand what motivates conservatives to eat like this , I decided to go straight to the source .
I emailed Cornyn ’ s press secretary and communications director , asking for some comment that would put their boss ’ s brisket presentation in context .
Neither responded .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republican political strategist , who ’ s still in the game as a PR consultant .
They agreed to talk to me anonymously because there ’ s apparently very little professional upside in talking about the bad eating habits of your potential clients .
The source guessed that the food tweets might illustrate the differences between the way Democrat and Republican communications teams operate .
“ Democrats manage their social profiles much more carefully , ” they noted , “ whereas conservative principals are more likely to post without running it through a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ totally exempt from being responsible for bad food posts .
Sen. Mark Warner ( D-Va. ) made a video of himself in April concocting a tuna melt that was wildly reviled online for the aggressive amounts of mayonnaise that he put in it .
Still , I tried to find comparable efforts by Democrats and came up short .
By and large , there haven ’ t been as many kitchen mishaps by liberals .
The social media analysis may be a generalization , but it ’ s not necessarily wrong .
( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Twitter . )
“ I also think conservatives have this feeling of being constantly demonized by the media , so you are seeing them trying to show their humanity , ” they speculated .
This makes perfect sense , but chances are they also actually like this stuff .
Maybe swaths of conservatives are the Britons of America , largely subsisting on and enjoying bland , ineptly cooked meals .
Rural and suburban areas , which skew conservative , have a near-monopoly on places like Chile ’ s and Ruby Tuesdays @ @ @ @ @ @ @ food .
I suspect the cooking goes the same way .
There ’ s a diversity of cuisines everywhere , but the potlucks of conservative suburbs I lived in growing up in the midwest and Texas are the only places in my life I ’ ve ever come across greenbean casseroles and other mushy , visually unappealing dishes .
I ’ m cautious about generalizing about what most Republicans are eating , but because Duncan Hunter was so corrupt there ’ s a long list of things he wrongfully spent money on with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a rare window into how another Republican eats : nearly exclusively at high-end American chain restaurants , which is to say , expensive versions of Chili ’ s .
Hunter probably wasn ’ t an aberration .
Without getting into the details that could cause problems in my professional life , I know other conservatives who eat like this .
Money isn ’ t a concern , but they almost always gravitate to steakhouses and pricey seafood chain restaurants .
These kinds of restaurants are a far cry from fake veggie pizzas , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s happening inside some people ’ s heads when they choose food .
The choices are safe and familiar to the people who are advertising them .
Scott Walker hasn ’ t eaten over 19,000 ham sandwiches because he ’ s an adventurous or curious person .
That ’ s the lunch of a man who has absolutely no interest in changing anything at all .
I ’ ve spent the last week since Cornyn ’ s brisket searching Google Scholar for permutations of “ politics , food bad ” “ conservatives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t found much .
The closest analogy seems to be with McMansions .
It ’ s hard to pinpoint the political demographics of McMansion owners , but 2014 research by the Political Polarization in the American Public shows a strong correlation between large homes that are built far apart—key features of McMansions—and conservatism .
Betsy Devos ’ s wild-looking summer home is one of the highest-profile examples of this , and who can forget former Arkansas Gov .
Mike Huckabee ’ s famous beachfront property .
These houses generally aren ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , you can probably afford structures that aren ’ t architectural Frankensteins .
But people who decide to live in them are communicating something about what they want people to think their values are : solid , prosperous , and aggressively not elitist like some liberal enclave in Southhampton .
A million-dollar house though is still a million-dollar house , regardless of where it is , or what it looks like .
While Cornyn might be eating dry tomato paste brisket with his family on Christmas Eve , once back in Washington , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Grille , where entrees go for $ 50 .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
On Christmas Eve, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) posted a picture of some awful-looking meat slathered with an ambiguous, thick red sauce that looked as if it had congealed before being scraped off some leftover spaghetti. Apparently, this was a Cornyn “brisket family tradition.” How the Cornyns arrived at this tradition is unclear and especially baffling given that he represents a state that is the undisputed barbecue capital of the country, and that he lives in Austin, arguably the barbecue capital of the barbecue state. Repulsed people on Twitter wondered the same thing, roasting the senator for his lurid Christmas Eve “traditional” family meal.
y’all wrong for dishonoring that cow’s memory like this. https://t.co/HVvwBAoguh — Joel D. Anderson (@byjoelanderson) December 25, 2020
"Fourteen beef jerky sticks, my good man. WITH the Ragu." — man it’s a hot zone, (@Mobute) December 25, 2020
This is not an isolated incident, however. The brisket episode fits into a larger, inexplicable pattern of conservatives posting gross food that they, presumably, are both proud of and about to eat. In July of 2019, former Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker tweeted out “Veggie pizza on the lake! Mmmmmm!” above an image of the loosest possible definition of pizza: uncooked cheese, raw broccoli, and tomatoes on top of what looked like an oversized graham cracker, or perhaps an undercooked pie shell smothered with ranch dressing.
Veggie pizza on the lake! Mmmmmm! pic.twitter.com/iSiILxwibs — Scott Walker (@ScottWalker) July 6, 2019
That February, former George W. Bush White House Press Secretary Dana Perino tweeted a picture of her homemade queso that bore a striking resemblance to cattle manure runoff.
I made queso pic.twitter.com/WXLFNcZlfU — Dana Perino (@DanaPerino) February 3, 2019
Once I started noticing the nauseating conservative gastronomy, it seemed as if it was everywhere. Ben Shapiro’s “conservative influencer” sister, Abigail, has posted some lackluster millennial dishes, including her take on “ramen” with what appeared to be frozen boneless chicken wings, messily cut soft boiled eggs, and no visible noodles. (To be clear, I’d eat but not post this “I’ve-recently-had-too-much-alcohol-and-am-out-of-groceries” meal.)
The permanently angry British Infowars correspondent Paul Joseph Watson routinely posts thoroughly depressing looking meals of boiled vegetables, unseasoned fish, and beans smothered in grated cheese, which he elevates by claiming it’s a menu to “own the libs.” I’m not going to challenge him on that point, but going through the work to make entire meals for shitposts makes me wonder who the joke is actually on. But maybe this is just because Watson is a certain kind of British man, and they are famous for routinely shoveling the world’s most execrable cuisine into their mouths.
In trying to understand what motivates conservatives to eat like this, I decided to go straight to the source. I emailed Cornyn’s press secretary and communications director, asking for some comment that would put their boss’s brisket presentation in context. Neither responded.
Undeterred, I turned to a former Republican political strategist, who’s still in the game as a PR consultant. They agreed to talk to me anonymously because there’s apparently very little professional upside in talking about the bad eating habits of your potential clients.
“Democrats manage their social profiles much more carefully, whereas conservative principals are more likely to post without running it through a comms team.”
The source guessed that the food tweets might illustrate the differences between the way Democrat and Republican communications teams operate. “Democrats manage their social profiles much more carefully,” they noted, “whereas conservative principals are more likely to post without running it through a comms team.” Democrats aren’t totally exempt from being responsible for bad food posts. Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) made a video of himself in April concocting a tuna melt that was wildly reviled online for the aggressive amounts of mayonnaise that he put in it. Still, I tried to find comparable efforts by Democrats and came up short. By and large, there haven’t been as many kitchen mishaps by liberals.
The social media analysis may be a generalization, but it’s not necessarily wrong. (There is no equivalent to Chuck Grassley’s Twitter.) “I also think conservatives have this feeling of being constantly demonized by the media, so you are seeing them trying to show their humanity,” they speculated.
This makes perfect sense, but chances are they also actually like this stuff. Maybe swaths of conservatives are the Britons of America, largely subsisting on and enjoying bland, ineptly cooked meals. Rural and suburban areas, which skew conservative, have a near-monopoly on places like Chile’s and Ruby Tuesdays, which serve solid, perfectly mediocre food. I suspect the cooking goes the same way. There’s a diversity of cuisines everywhere, but the potlucks of conservative suburbs I lived in growing up in the midwest and Texas are the only places in my life I’ve ever come across greenbean casseroles and other mushy, visually unappealing dishes.
I’m cautious about generalizing about what most Republicans are eating, but because Duncan Hunter was so corrupt there’s a long list of things he wrongfully spent money on with campaign funds. Thus, we have a rare window into how another Republican eats: nearly exclusively at high-end American chain restaurants, which is to say, expensive versions of Chili’s. Hunter probably wasn’t an aberration. Without getting into the details that could cause problems in my professional life, I know other conservatives who eat like this. Money isn’t a concern, but they almost always gravitate to steakhouses and pricey seafood chain restaurants.
These kinds of restaurants are a far cry from fake veggie pizzas, but they might shed light on what’s happening inside some people’s heads when they choose food. The choices are safe and familiar to the people who are advertising them. Scott Walker hasn’t eaten over 19,000 ham sandwiches because he’s an adventurous or curious person. That’s the lunch of a man who has absolutely no interest in changing anything at all.
I’ve spent the last week since Cornyn’s brisket searching Google Scholar for permutations of “politics, food bad” “conservatives, bad cooking”—but I haven’t found much. The closest analogy seems to be with McMansions. It’s hard to pinpoint the political demographics of McMansion owners, but 2014 research by the Political Polarization in the American Public shows a strong correlation between large homes that are built far apart—key features of McMansions—and conservatism. Betsy Devos’s wild-looking summer home is one of the highest-profile examples of this, and who can forget former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee’s famous beachfront property.
These houses generally aren’t cheap. If you can afford them, you can probably afford structures that aren’t architectural Frankensteins. But people who decide to live in them are communicating something about what they want people to think their values are: solid, prosperous, and aggressively not elitist like some liberal enclave in Southhampton. A million-dollar house though is still a million-dollar house, regardless of where it is, or what it looks like. While Cornyn might be eating dry tomato paste brisket with his family on Christmas Eve, once back in Washington, he still enjoys places like the Capital Grille, where entrees go for $50.


motherjones--2020-12-30--Heroes of 2020: “All Gas No Brakes”

Heroes of 2020: “All Gas No Brakes”

“ Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
” As an allegorical aphorism , it is almost never true .
Enabled by social media , conspiracists , white supremacists , and general hoax types have garnered more exposure—more “ sunlight ” —and their hate and ignorance has only gone viral and grown .
What has slowed down toxic provocateurs like Alex Jones , Milo Yiannopoulos , Baked Alaska , and many others has been their removal from social media .
That is a better disinfectant .
It turns out giving hateful rhetoric airtime and a platform doesn ’ t repulse everyone .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to them .
At scale , sunlight isn ’ t very helpful .
But when administered by consummate deadpanner and budding gonzo journalist Andrew Callaghan , it ’ s not only effective—it ’ s very entertaining .
Callaghan created All Gas No Brakes , his YouTube channel , in 2019 .
Since then he ’ s been crossing the country in an RV stuffed with friends , documenting the outermost threads that make up America ’ s extensive tapestry of subcultures .
In the past year or so , they ’ ve made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ News Awards , and Talladega Superspeedway .
As coronavirus ravaged the U.S. he didn ’ t slow down , throwing on a mask to get uncomfortably close to the bizarre underbelly of Americana .
Most of Callaghan ’ s videos are great .
But his most important work has come from his forays into the far-right , where he ’ s just turned the camera on and mostly let them speak .
“ I understand sometimes when the left is like ‘ Ah well , [ the Proud Boys ] are violent !
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ make self-defense look like assault , ” a shrugging Proud Boy leader , Enrique Tarrio , told Callaghan at a summer rally for the group , a neo-fascist organization that describes itself as “ western chauvinist.
” Its often violent members have managed to dodge the brutal tendencies of police , sometimes even getting chummy with them—something critics suspect is because the groups share discreet relationships , which reporting shows is at least sometimes true .
A few minutes later Callaghan bluntly asked Tarrio : “ Do Proud Boys communicate with the police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interview subjects that day similarly incriminated themselves explicitly—and , implicitly , the rest of the Proud Boys , by making it clear that there are some absolute dangerous weirdos in the group .
He lets a man dressed only in what looks like a black morph suit—except for his hunting-camo hat and wraparound sunglasses—make himself look even more and more buffoonish the longer the tape rolls , as he confidently prattles off the obscure conspiracy theories he believes .
Another guy wearing a softball helmet and ski goggles while holding a massive Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ isn ’ t so bad , before he decides to cut the interview short after realizing what he just said out loud .
Callaghan then turns to a guy nearby who has an unspecified vendetta , as evinced by a sign he was holding , against George Soros .
One can guess why , given the anti-Semitic roots of far-right attacks targeting the liberal philanthropist .
This is generally how Callaghan ’ s interviews go .
Aside from some cuts to move things along and making Vic Berger-styled surrealist and goofy edits to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Callaghan mostly just lets them hang themselves with their own rope .
And , every time , they do .
In almost every video , his patient but general questioning about why they believe what they do consistently reveals anti-Semitic thinking .
These are the people he always finds , uncoincidentally , hanging around Proud Boys rallies , Flat Earth events , anti-coronavirus lockdown protests , and the like .
It ’ s really effective .
The far-right groups of 2020 , wittingly or not , are antecedents of the far-right internet culture @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vocabulary of terms—cuck , beta , redpill—came out of 4chan and Gamergate adjacent and affiliated Reddit communities .
These were spaces where cruelty was disguised as irony .
Being racist was a joke , a troll for the lulz .
So ironically throwing up the white power sign to troll the libs in public , while privately identifying as a white supremacist segregationist , is just a slightly less online version of what 4chan trolls were doing in 2014 .
Callaghan meets them on their own terms .
They make jokes to disguise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elucidates their racism , disguised as a joke .
Inevitably , journalists reporting on and outlets and publications running straight news stories about the far-right will always register , in some minds , on a frequency aside from irony or disgust .
This often well-intentioned coverage will nonetheless prove attractive to swathes of the country , especially the irony-poisoned internet youth who Proud Boys and the like try so hard to convert .
While sternly condemning neo-fascists in a crisp , expensive suit and ironed tie is something fancy people who wear fancy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a self-serious broadcaster raising an eyebrow and saying that the alt-right is “ racist ” in a slightly raised baritone is never going to resonate with the extremely online .
But with his rumpled clothes and flat affect , All Gas No Brakes has figured out how to out-irony the edgelords .
Callaghan himself isn ’ t just in it for the bit .
His lampoons are laced with empathy for some of the subjects he ’ s critical of .
In an interview with Twitch political personality Hasan Piker , Callaghan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in his filming .
“ It ’ s unfortunate , because these are very curious , investigative people , who are willing to put in tons of independent research time—which most people aren ’ t down to do , ” he explained , bemoaning that their interests and conspiracy thinking always “ go back to the Jews every time.
” Given he ’ s handling such dark currents , Callaghan isn ’ t blithe about the limits of letting people speak completely freely in videos that will reach a big audience .
( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ watched 61 million times on YouTube alone , where the channel has 1.5 million subscribers . )
He told Vice in an April interview that despite disseminating hours of candid conservations with some of the most unsavory people he can find , he ’ s still holding on to footage that he has ” refused to broadcast because doing so would directly give a platform to hate speech.
” He told the news site that he once cut an interview short because an interviewee at a Flat Earth conference alluded to denying the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Proud Boys rally , Callaghan made sure to include clips from the event showing a student journalist who was shoved to the ground and kicked in the head by a Proud Boy , and of another who accused an independent journalist of bias since she was “ Arab.
” In highlighting moments like these , Callaghan ’ s All Gas No Brakes shows what it actually takes to make sunlight work as a disinfectant .
In a year where hate , violence , and those who push them have been an ever-present specter @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
“Sunlight is the best disinfectant.” As an allegorical aphorism, it is almost never true.
Enabled by social media, conspiracists, white supremacists, and general hoax types have garnered more exposure—more “sunlight”—and their hate and ignorance has only gone viral and grown. What has slowed down toxic provocateurs like Alex Jones, Milo Yiannopoulos, Baked Alaska, and many others has been their removal from social media. That is a better disinfectant.
All Gas No Brakes documents the outermost threads in America’s extensive tapestry of subcultures.
It turns out giving hateful rhetoric airtime and a platform doesn’t repulse everyone. In many, cases it actually appeals to them. At scale, sunlight isn’t very helpful. But when administered by consummate deadpanner and budding gonzo journalist Andrew Callaghan, it’s not only effective—it’s very entertaining.
Callaghan created All Gas No Brakes, his YouTube channel, in 2019. Since then he’s been crossing the country in an RV stuffed with friends, documenting the outermost threads that make up America’s extensive tapestry of subcultures. In the past year or so, they’ve made it to FurFest, the Adult Video News Awards, and Talladega Superspeedway. As coronavirus ravaged the U.S. he didn’t slow down, throwing on a mask to get uncomfortably close to the bizarre underbelly of Americana.
Most of Callaghan’s videos are great. But his most important work has come from his forays into the far-right, where he’s just turned the camera on and mostly let them speak.
“I understand sometimes when the left is like ‘Ah well, [the Proud Boys] are violent!’ It’s ‘cause we make self-defense look like assault,” a shrugging Proud Boy leader, Enrique Tarrio, told Callaghan at a summer rally for the group, a neo-fascist organization that describes itself as “western chauvinist.” Its often violent members have managed to dodge the brutal tendencies of police, sometimes even getting chummy with them—something critics suspect is because the groups share discreet relationships, which reporting shows is at least sometimes true.
A few minutes later Callaghan bluntly asked Tarrio: “Do Proud Boys communicate with the police?”
“We do,” he admitted.
Some of Callaghan’s interview subjects that day similarly incriminated themselves explicitly—and, implicitly, the rest of the Proud Boys, by making it clear that there are some absolute dangerous weirdos in the group.
He lets a man dressed only in what looks like a black morph suit—except for his hunting-camo hat and wraparound sunglasses—make himself look even more and more buffoonish the longer the tape rolls, as he confidently prattles off the obscure conspiracy theories he believes. Another guy wearing a softball helmet and ski goggles while holding a massive Trump flag muses that Black Lives Matter maybe isn’t so bad, before he decides to cut the interview short after realizing what he just said out loud.
Callaghan then turns to a guy nearby who has an unspecified vendetta, as evinced by a sign he was holding, against George Soros. One can guess why, given the anti-Semitic roots of far-right attacks targeting the liberal philanthropist.
This is generally how Callaghan’s interviews go. Aside from some cuts to move things along and making Vic Berger-styled surrealist and goofy edits to underscore the absurdity of his subjects, Callaghan mostly just lets them hang themselves with their own rope. And, every time, they do. In almost every video, his patient but general questioning about why they believe what they do consistently reveals anti-Semitic thinking. These are the people he always finds, uncoincidentally, hanging around Proud Boys rallies, Flat Earth events, anti-coronavirus lockdown protests, and the like.
Extremists make jokes to disguise their racism. Callaghan makes journalism that elucidates their racism, disguised as a joke.
It’s really effective. The far-right groups of 2020, wittingly or not, are antecedents of the far-right internet culture of the mid-2010’s. Their vocabulary of terms—cuck, beta, redpill—came out of 4chan and Gamergate adjacent and affiliated Reddit communities. These were spaces where cruelty was disguised as irony. Being racist was a joke, a troll for the lulz. So ironically throwing up the white power sign to troll the libs in public, while privately identifying as a white supremacist segregationist, is just a slightly less online version of what 4chan trolls were doing in 2014. Callaghan meets them on their own terms. They make jokes to disguise their racism. Callaghan makes journalism that elucidates their racism, disguised as a joke.
Inevitably, journalists reporting on and outlets and publications running straight news stories about the far-right will always register, in some minds, on a frequency aside from irony or disgust. This often well-intentioned coverage will nonetheless prove attractive to swathes of the country, especially the irony-poisoned internet youth who Proud Boys and the like try so hard to convert. While sternly condemning neo-fascists in a crisp, expensive suit and ironed tie is something fancy people who wear fancy suit and ties should definitely keep doing, a self-serious broadcaster raising an eyebrow and saying that the alt-right is “racist” in a slightly raised baritone is never going to resonate with the extremely online. But with his rumpled clothes and flat affect, All Gas No Brakes has figured out how to out-irony the edgelords.
Callaghan himself isn’t just in it for the bit. His lampoons are laced with empathy for some of the subjects he’s critical of. In an interview with Twitch political personality Hasan Piker, Callaghan lamented how often anti-Jewish bigotry came up in his filming. “It’s unfortunate, because these are very curious, investigative people, who are willing to put in tons of independent research time—which most people aren’t down to do,” he explained, bemoaning that their interests and conspiracy thinking always “go back to the Jews every time.”
Given he’s handling such dark currents, Callaghan isn’t blithe about the limits of letting people speak completely freely in videos that will reach a big audience. (All Gas No Brakes videos have been watched 61 million times on YouTube alone, where the channel has 1.5 million subscribers.) He told Vice in an April interview that despite disseminating hours of candid conservations with some of the most unsavory people he can find, he’s still holding on to footage that he has ”refused to broadcast because doing so would directly give a platform to hate speech.” He told the news site that he once cut an interview short because an interviewee at a Flat Earth conference alluded to denying the holocaust.
In his video documenting the Proud Boys rally, Callaghan made sure to include clips from the event showing a student journalist who was shoved to the ground and kicked in the head by a Proud Boy, and of another who accused an independent journalist of bias since she was “Arab.” In highlighting moments like these, Callaghan’s All Gas No Brakes shows what it actually takes to make sunlight work as a disinfectant. In a year where hate, violence, and those who push them have been an ever-present specter, that makes him a hero.


motherjones--2020-01-31--Jay Sekulow’s Radio Show Is Covering Jay Sekulow’s Impeachment Lawyering

President Donald Trump prefers to get his legal representation from TV lawyers .
All of his personal attorneys—Rudy Giuliani , Alan Dershowitz , Joseph diGenova and his wife Victoria Toensing—have been regular talking heads on Fox News and in conservative media .
But none of them can compete with what attorney Jay Sekulow offers Trump : His own show .
And for the past two weeks , Jay Sekulow Live !
has been covering Jay Sekulow—live !
—as he defends the president on the Senate floor , with special guest Jay Sekulow , proving to be an under-appreciated megaphone for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As the chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice , a nonprofit founded by televangelist Pat Robertson in 1990 as the religious-right counterweight to the American Civil Liberties Union , Sekulow is a legal warrior who fights for the pre-born and battles the IRS , gays and liberals .
He is also a Christian media star whose daily radio show , Jay Sekulow Live !
reportedly reaches an audience of 1.5 million and also airs on several Christian TV networks .
Sekulow is no slouch in the legal department @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in front of the Supreme Court , many on behalf of anti-abortion groups .
And now , as many of Trump ’ s other lawyers have fallen by the wayside after disputes with their client , Sekulow has ended up front and center during the president ’ s Senate impeachment trial , arguing passionately that the trial is about a policy dispute and the Democrats ’ dislike for Trump and not about high crimes and misdemeanors .
During most ordinary days on his show , Sekulow spends his time counseling callers suffering various @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ACLJ lawyers stand ready to help when , for instance , a public library allows patrons to watch porn on public computers , or a caller wants to start a Bible study group at work .
But Sekulow has also used the program as his personal vehicle for defending Trump , whom he has represented since 2017 , first during the days of the Mueller investigation and now during the president ’ s impeachment .
So it only makes sense that when Sekulow joined Trump ’ s impeachment defense team , the 63-year-old @ @ @ @ @ @ @ followers just because he ’ s really busy defending the president in the Senate .
For the past two weeks , Jay Sekulow Live !
has devoted every show to the impeachment trial .
In Sekulow ’ s absence , guest host Nathanael Bennett , ACLJ ’ s director of government affairs , commands the mic in the studio , flanked by conservative commentators from the ACLJ staff .
Sekulow and his 37-year-old son Jordan , who is also a lawyer on the president ’ s defense team , act as on-the-scene reporters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Capitol , they trash the Democratic House impeachment managers , handicap the proceedings like a sporting event , praise President Trump ’ s tremendous record , and ask for prayers for the cause .
“ He ’ s been an extremely successful president , ” Jordan said on the show over the weekend .
“ Like him or not , as he likes to say , ‘ Check your 401k.
’ ” The Sekulows ’ dual roles as lawyers for the president and legal commentators on the impeachment trial—and on their own show @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legal scholar Alan Dershowitz , who ’ s teamed up with Sekulow on the president ’ s defense team , noted the potential for conflicts of interest back in 2018 , when Sekulow devoted hours and hours of his daily show every week to attacking special counsel Robert Mueller and the Russia investigation .
“ Whenever you ’ re representing the president , obviously the line between politics and the law is a blurry one , ” Dershowitz told Politico .
“ There ’ s both a tactical line and an ethical one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” ACLJ did not respond to questions or a request for comment from Sekulow .
And walking it all the way to the bank .
During breaks , the online version of Jay Sekulow Live !
runs ads asking for donations to the ACLJ , touting its record defending religious freedom and the rights of the unborn .
Such ads have helped turn the ACLJ into a fundraising juggernaut .
Between 2014 and 2018 , according to its most recent tax filing , the center brought in more than $ 100 million—millions of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Sekulow family , including Jordan , through a complex web of related charities and vendors .
Sekulow ’ s show is a significant part of his empire .
Jay Sekulow Live !
is now carried on 1,000 radio stations around the country as well as Sirius XM .
It also airs as a TV show on huge Christian networks like the Trinity Broadcasting Network , where Trump ’ s favorite televangelists , like his spiritual adviser Paula White , regularly dial for dollars .
Sekulow ’ s audience consists of some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ followers—evangelical voters who are following the impeachment proceedings closely , if callers to Jay Sekulow Live !
are any indication of his demographic .
On the January 24 edition , Nancy from California called in to ask whether the impeachment was an effort to keep the Senate from confirming more conservative judges .
Judith was unable to maintain her composure when she called in to say how much she loves Trump .
Through sobs , she sniffled , “ I get choked up because of all the things he is doing for us.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ host : “ Once this case is dismissed , can he file a case for malicious prosecution ?
Because there are elements that this case was instituted and pursued without probable cause .
I think there is a case for malicious prosecution.
” The real highlights , of course , are when Sekulow father and son capture the urgency of being on the scene and give their listeners the immediacy and intimacy of being in the Capitol .
“ I ’ m right outside the floor of the US Senate chamber , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ We ’ re preparing to go in for the final day of the opening statement of the House Democrat members .
We ’ ll talk about all of that , how we plan to respond for the president , today on Jay Sekulow Live !
” As it turns out , though , the Sekulows ’ Senate-side reports aren ’ t much more illuminating than locker room interviews with LeBron James on an upcoming playoff game .
Saving their best material for the trial , Jay and Jordan have mostly offered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ day ’ s proceedings and touted the impressiveness of their squad .
“ We ’ ve got a great team , a great line up , ” Jordan told listeners on January 27 .
“ I just want all the listeners to know that they will see my dad start off the proceedings today , so tune in right after the radio broadcast .
And then we ’ re going to have some great constitutional law scholars and attorneys .
This is going to be a pretty exciting day .
I just want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ everybody .
We ’ re doing the right thing for the right president.
” Jay , who has been busy on the Senate floor , can only pop in for a minute or two now and then .
The pre-trial show on Jan. 24 was a typical episode .
After lauding Trump for becoming the first president to ever address the anti-abortion March for Life in Washington that was taking place that day , Jordan said , “ Hey Dad , can you join real quick ?
” Jay obliged : “ Hey @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we are just about an hour away from going back on the floor .
This is the last day of the House ’ s presentation of the impeachment articles .
We will begin our defense tomorrow…We will not only start laying out the case in defense of the president but also pointing out what was wrong with what the House managers put forward .
We appreciate everybody praying .
We appreciate everybody staying engaged.
” The Sekulows ’ radio show often seems like just another extension of their defense of Trump , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Bennett has the important role of holding down the fort while the Sekulows are busy with the serious business of protecting the president .
He has filled the daily hour with long C-Span clips of Jay Sekulow from the Senate floor , or with Jordan ’ s hits on Fox & Friends and Sean Hannity .
The day before the trial started , Bennett read all seven pages of the Trump impeachment defense memo on the air before Jordan called in to break the monotony with some words for their fans .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ is all prepared to go to battle for President Trump as the trial begins , ” Jordan said .
There has certainly never been any precedent for this double duty during an impeachment trial , but the Sekulows ’ dual roles are reminiscent of a very different but riveting television legal proceeding : the O.J .
Simpson trial , which was a veritable circus of TV lawyers .
Laurie Levenson , a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles was one of them .
She recalls some concern over the potential conflicts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Simpson in his criminal case , was commenting on TV about the civil case against Simpson .
Generally , lawyers don ’ t publicly comment much on their own cases while they ’ re ongoing , in part simply out of concern for their clients and also because ethics rules constrain what they can or should say about a case .
These rules differ by state , but they generally require lawyers to maintain civility inside the courtroom and out .
The American Bar Association ’ s Model Rules of Professional Conduct assert @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not “ state a personal opinion as to the justness of a cause , the credibility of a witness , the culpability of a civil litigant or the guilt or innocence of an accused.
” The ABA ’ s model code also requires lawyers to avoid any statements that might prejudice the outcome of a case .
But of course , all of these standards presuppose a jury trial , which impeachment is not .
In the aftermath of the O.J .
fiasco , Levenson teamed up with Erwin Chemerinsky , dean of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also had been a TV commentator for the trial .
The pair wrote a law review article proposing a model ethics code for lawyers who provide legal commentary in the media , in the hopes of cleaning up the business .
Among the model rules is the “ duty to avoid conflicts.
” According to the guidelines they drafted , as lawyers , the Sekulows ’ first duty is to their client , President Trump .
But as legal commentators , a lawyers ’ duty is to the public or the media organization @ @ @ @ @ @ @ obligation to provide fair and accurate commentary on a case .
It ’ s difficult for the Sekulows to ethically reconcile these two loyalties while both representing the president and running a broadcast show on the impeachment—though their attempt to do so may explain why most of their on-air commentary is so insipid .
Even so , the impeachment proceeding isn ’ t really a legal or criminal trial—it ’ s a political proceeding .
And because of that , the ethics and bar rules mostly don ’ t apply .
“ Impeachment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a legal ethics expert at the NYU school of law .
“ It is not even ‘ an adjudicative proceeding ’ as that term is understood .
So Sekulow is free to do this , odd as it may appear to others.
” On Jan. 23 , after several days of testimony from Democratic House impeachment managers , Jordan came on the show to dismiss most of the evidence as hearsay and to paint the Democrats ’ case as weak .
“ It ’ s all falling apart for the Democrats , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back into the chamber .
“ Thanks , Jordan , ” Bennett said , before marveling , “ Nowhere else are you going to get updates from the president ’ s legal team live .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
President Donald Trump prefers to get his legal representation from TV lawyers. All of his personal attorneys—Rudy Giuliani, Alan Dershowitz, Joseph diGenova and his wife, Victoria Toensing—have been regular talking heads on Fox News and in conservative media. But none of them can compete with what attorney Jay Sekulow offers Trump: his own show. And for the past two weeks, Jay Sekulow Live! has been covering Jay Sekulow—live!—as he defends the president on the Senate floor, with special guest Jay Sekulow, proving to be an underappreciated megaphone for Trump’s case in the media.
As chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, a nonprofit founded by televangelist Pat Robertson in 1990 as the religious-right counterweight to the American Civil Liberties Union, Sekulow is a legal warrior who fights for the pre-born and battles the IRS, gays, and liberals. He is also a Christian media star whose daily radio show, Jay Sekulow Live!, reportedly reaches an audience of 1.5 million and also airs on several Christian TV networks.
Sekulow is no slouch in the legal department. He’s argued 12 cases in front of the Supreme Court, many on behalf of anti-abortion groups. And now, as many of Trump’s other lawyers have fallen by the wayside after disputes with their client, Sekulow has ended up front and center during the president’s Senate impeachment trial, arguing passionately that the trial is about a policy dispute and the Democrats’ dislike for Trump and not about high crimes and misdemeanors.
During most ordinary days on his show, Sekulow spends his time counseling callers suffering various moral injuries and possible legal ones. ACLJ lawyers stand ready to help when, for instance, a public library allows patrons to watch porn on public computers, or a caller wants to start a Bible study group at work. But Sekulow has also used the program as his personal vehicle for defending Trump, whom he has represented since 2017, first during the days of the Mueller investigation and now during the president’s impeachment. So it only makes sense that when Sekulow joined Trump’s impeachment defense team, the 63-year-old lawyer-cum-media-personality couldn’t abandon his loyal followers just because he’s really busy defending the president in the Senate.
For the past two weeks, Jay Sekulow Live! has devoted every show to the impeachment trial. In Sekulow’s absence, guest host Nathanael Bennett, ACLJ’s director of government affairs, commands the mic in the studio, flanked by conservative commentators from the ACLJ staff. Sekulow and his 37-year-old son, Jordan, who is also a lawyer on the president’s defense team, act as on-the-scene reporters. Calling in blow-by-blow news from the Capitol, they trash the Democratic House impeachment managers, handicap the proceedings like a sporting event, praise President Trump’s tremendous record, and ask for prayers for the cause. “He’s been an extremely successful president,” Jordan said on the show over the weekend. “Like him or not, as he likes to say, ‘Check your 401k.’”
The Sekulows’ dual roles as lawyers for the president and legal commentators on the impeachment trial—and on their own show no less—is an unusual one. Even legal scholar Alan Dershowitz, who’s teamed up with Sekulow on the president’s defense team, noted the potential for conflicts of interest back in 2018, when Sekulow devoted hours and hours of his daily show every week to attacking special counsel Robert Mueller and the Russia investigation. “Whenever you’re representing the president, obviously the line between politics and the law is a blurry one,” Dershowitz told Politico. “There’s both a tactical line and an ethical one. He seems to be walking it.” ACLJ did not respond to questions or a request for comment from Sekulow.
And walking it all the way to the bank. During breaks, the online version of Jay Sekulow Live! runs ads asking for donations to the ACLJ, touting its record defending religious freedom and the rights of the unborn. Such ads have helped turn the ACLJ into a fundraising juggernaut. Between 2014 and 2018, according to its most recent tax filing, the center brought in more than $100 million—millions of which ended up going back to members of the Sekulow family, including Jordan, through a complex web of related charities and vendors.
Sekulow’s show is a significant part of his empire. Jay Sekulow Live! is now carried on 1,000 radio stations around the country as well as Sirius XM. It also airs as a TV show on huge Christian networks like the Trinity Broadcasting Network, where Trump’s favorite televangelists, like his spiritual adviser Paula White, regularly dial for dollars. Sekulow’s audience consists of some of the president’s most loyal followers—evangelical voters who are following the impeachment proceedings closely, if callers to Jay Sekulow Live! are any indication of his demographic.
On the January 24 edition, Nancy from California called in to ask whether the impeachment was an effort to keep the Senate from confirming more conservative judges. Judith was unable to maintain her composure when she called in to say how much she loves Trump. Through sobs, she sniffled, “I get choked up because of all the things he is doing for us.” She had a question for the host: “Once this case is dismissed, can he file a case for malicious prosecution? Because there are elements that this case was instituted and pursued without probable cause. I think there is a case for malicious prosecution.”
“This is going to be a pretty exciting day. I just want everybody to tune in… Just pray for everybody. We’re doing the right thing for the right president.”
The real highlights, of course, are when Sekulow father and son capture the urgency of being on the scene and give their listeners the immediacy and intimacy of being in the Capitol. “I’m right outside the floor of the US Senate chamber,” Jordan reported conspiratorially one day last week. “We’re preparing to go in for the final day of the opening statement of the House Democrat members. We’ll talk about all of that, how we plan to respond for the president, today on Jay Sekulow Live!”
As it turns out, though, the Sekulows’ Senate-side reports aren’t much more illuminating than locker room interviews with LeBron James on an upcoming playoff game. Saving their best material for the trial, Jay and Jordan have mostly offered their fans bland descriptions of the next day’s proceedings and touted the impressiveness of their squad.
“We’ve got a great team, a great line up,” Jordan told listeners on January 27. “I just want all the listeners to know that they will see my dad start off the proceedings today, so tune in right after the radio broadcast. And then we’re going to have some great constitutional law scholars and attorneys. This is going to be a pretty exciting day. I just want everybody to tune in… Just pray for everybody. We’re doing the right thing for the right president.”
Jay, who has been busy on the Senate floor, can only pop in for a minute or two now and then. The pre-trial show on Jan. 24 was a typical episode. After lauding Trump for becoming the first president to ever address the anti-abortion March for Life in Washington that was taking place that day, Jordan said, “Hey Dad, can you join real quick?”
Jay obliged: “Hey everybody. As Jordan just told you, we are just about an hour away from going back on the floor. This is the last day of the House’s presentation of the impeachment articles. We will begin our defense tomorrow…We will not only start laying out the case in defense of the president but also pointing out what was wrong with what the House managers put forward. We appreciate everybody praying. We appreciate everybody staying engaged.”
The Sekulows’ radio show often seems like just another extension of their defense of Trump, of course, which naturally it is. Bennett has the important role of holding down the fort while the Sekulows are busy with the serious business of protecting the president. He has filled the daily hour with long C-Span clips of Jay Sekulow from the Senate floor, or with Jordan’s hits on Fox & Friends and Sean Hannity. The day before the trial started, Bennett read all seven pages of the Trump impeachment defense memo on the air before Jordan called in to break the monotony with some words for their fans. “Let ’em know the team is all prepared to go to battle for President Trump as the trial begins,” Jordan said.
There has certainly never been any precedent for this double duty during an impeachment trial, but the Sekulows’ dual roles are reminiscent of a very different but riveting television legal proceeding: the O.J. Simpson trial, which was a veritable circus of TV lawyers. Laurie Levenson, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles was one of them. She recalls some concern over the potential conflicts when Robert Shapiro, who had represented Simpson in his criminal case, was commenting on TV about the civil case against Simpson. Generally, lawyers don’t publicly comment much on their own cases while they’re ongoing, in part simply out of concern for their clients and also because ethics rules constrain what they can or should say about a case.
These rules differ by state, but they generally require lawyers to maintain civility inside the courtroom and out. The American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct assert that during a trial, lawyers shall not “state a personal opinion as to the justness of a cause, the credibility of a witness, the culpability of a civil litigant or the guilt or innocence of an accused.” The ABA’s model code also requires lawyers to avoid any statements that might prejudice the outcome of a case. But of course, all of these standards presuppose a jury trial, which impeachment is not.
In the aftermath of the O.J. fiasco, Levenson teamed up with Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley law school, who also had been a TV commentator for the trial. The pair wrote a law review article proposing a model ethics code for lawyers who provide legal commentary in the media, in the hopes of cleaning up the business. Among the model rules is the “duty to avoid conflicts.” According to the guidelines they drafted, as lawyers, the Sekulows’ first duty is to their client, President Trump. But as legal commentators, a lawyers’ duty is to the public or the media organization they work for, with the ensuing obligation to provide fair and accurate commentary on a case.
It’s difficult for the Sekulows to ethically reconcile these two loyalties while both representing the president and running a broadcast show on the impeachment—though their attempt to do so may explain why most of their on-air commentary is so insipid. Even so, the impeachment proceeding isn’t really a legal or criminal trial—it’s a political proceeding. And because of that, the ethics and bar rules mostly don’t apply. “Impeachment is unique,” explains Stephen Gillers, a legal ethics expert at the NYU school of law. “It is not even ‘an adjudicative proceeding’ as that term is understood. So Sekulow is free to do this, odd as it may appear to others.”
On January 23, after several days of testimony from Democratic House impeachment managers, Jordan came on the show to dismiss most of the evidence as hearsay and to paint the Democrats’ case as weak. “It’s all falling apart for the Democrats,” Jordan assured his audience before ducking back into the chamber. “Thanks, Jordan,” Bennett said, before marveling, “Nowhere else are you going to get updates from the president’s legal team live.”


motherjones--2020-01-31--Warren vs. Sanders: Inside the Progressive Debate Over the Student Debt Crisis

Last April , the socialist magazine Jacobin had a message for its favorite presidential candidate : “ As President , Bernie Sanders Should Cancel All Student Debt.
” The secretary of Education , the magazine argued , could wipe out most of the $ 1.6 trillion in outstanding college loans “ with the stroke of a pen.
” As his reward , Jacobin predicted , Sanders would win “ the lifelong loyalty ” of millions of young Americans .
But it was Elizabeth Warren who first answered that call .
Later that month , she unveiled a proposal to cancel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for borrowers who earn up to $ 250,000 per year .
The plan would use an income-based sliding scale to determine how much assistance each person gets , a formula that would eliminate 40 percent of all student debt and provide relief to 95 percent of the country ’ s 45 million borrowers .
Jacobin criticized the plan for its means-tested eligibility requirements but still credited Warren for taking the lead .
Her proposal “ isn ’ t perfect , but it ’ s the boldest so far , ” the magazine said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” He did .
In June , the Vermont senator teamed up with Rep. Ilhan Omar to introduce a bill that went beyond Warren ’ s : It would cancel all student debt , for all borrowers , “ no exceptions , no questions asked , ” Omar said .
Wiping out student debt has become an increasingly central part of the 2020 debate .
That ’ s a radical change from four years ago , when none of the Democratic contenders—not even Sanders—embraced it .
This time around , polls have shown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have worked to transform the public image of the student debtor from lazy , handout-hungry Millennial to hardworking victim of predatory banks and bad government policy .
Many of this cycle ’ s more moderate Democratic hopefuls have spoken out against wide-scale loan forgiveness , but even Pete Buttigieg—who ’ s spent the primaries criticizing Sanders ’ and Warren ’ s proposals for tuition-free college—has a plan to cancel debt for students who attended for-profit colleges .
Meanwhile , President Donald Trump , worried that the progressive debt relief plans could prove popular @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up with their own solution to the issue .
This remarkable shift in the political conversation didn ’ t come out of nowhere .
It has its roots in a tiny group of experts , activists , and donors who have worked with both Sanders and Warren to turn a nascent , left-wing pipedream into a plank of presidential platforms .
But exactly how these proposals found their way into those platforms illustrates the dramatically different visions that the two leading progressives have brought to the campaign .
For Warren , it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ calibrated policies to protect society ’ s most vulnerable from predation .
For Sanders , it ’ s about channeling the energy of the left into into sweeping policies that upend unjust systems in their entirety .
How did we end up in this place , where 13 percent of Americans owe a collective sum rivaling the GDP of Russia—an amount so large that it ’ s forcing young people to delay buying homes and having children ?
The root of the problem , of course , is the cost of college .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ began reining in their funding for higher education , causing the cost of attendance at four-year public schools to more than double between 1985 and 2015 .
Existing federal aid programs couldn ’ t keep pace , and in 1992 , Congress established a new loan program to address that—one with generous borrowing limits and interest that began accruing immediately .
As more middle-class families began to take out loans , the 2005 bankruptcy reform bill—which Joe Biden championed and Warren and Sanders opposed—made it nearly impossible for them to extricate themselves from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and nearly 30 million borrowers ran straight into the buzzsaw of the financial crash .
Students graduated into a dismal economy with few jobs available to pay off their loans .
Some chose to weather the storm by attending expensive graduate programs that added five or six figures to their debt .
States , meanwhile , responded by slashing higher education funding even further .
The 2008 Democratic presidential candidates put forth modest solutions to the quickly escalating problem .
North Carolina Sen. John Edwards proposed one free year of college for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that they “ stay out of trouble.
” Barack Obama suggested small increases to Pell Grants , a federal program for low-income students—a promise he made good on in his first term as part of broader reforms to federal student loan programs .
His focus , however , remained on bailing out the banks .
Some activists deemed that response insufficient .
In 2011 , Strike Debt , an offshoot of the Occupy Wall Street movement , undertook an unsuccessful effort to get one million borrowers to stop paying back their loans .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ its own debt strike with 15 students who had attended Corinthian Colleges , a for-profit chain .
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau—the watchdog agency that Warren first conceived of—later won a lawsuit alleging that Corinthians had defrauded students with predatory recruitment practices , falsified employment statistics , and risky loans .
Around this time , an unlikely pair stumbled onto the growing crisis : Mary and Steven Swig .
The couple is part of the Bay Area ’ s oldest real estate dynasty , which had , at various points , owned iconic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ luxury Fairmont Hotel chain .
Mary , now 77 , built a silk importing and lingerie business that was beloved by Oprah .
Her husband , also 77 , stepped away from the family business to found a graduate school offering public affairs and business degrees oriented around progressive values .
When I met the two of them—over a video call from their home in San Francisco ’ s tony Pacific Heights neighborhood—the couple ’ s casual sweatshirt ensembles betrayed little of their moneyed origins .
The only real sign of their influence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were holding , which had a photograph of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on them .
“ This is from our nephew , when he got a job with Nancy in Washington , ” Steven explained .
The extended Swig family is familiar to Democratic operatives as reliable mega-donors , and Mary and Steven are no exception .
They ’ ve contributed at least $ 2.7 million to federal Democratic efforts since the early 1980s , and Steven serves as Pelosi ’ s campaign treasurer .
( They have also donated to Mother Jones @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had student debt .
They both attended the University of California , Berkeley , in the 1960s and paid no more than $ 175 per semester , in activity and health care fees .
The issue crossed their radar when their daughter Samantha announced that she planned to use an unexpected inheritance from her grandfather to pay off a friend ’ s six-figure student loan debt .
Mary recounted the tale to her company ’ s employees , some of whom received substantial sums of money from the Swigs to help them to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ I said , ‘ Well , isn ’ t it wonderful ?
I ’ m so excited that none of you guys have to worry about student debt for your kids , ’ ” Mary recalled .
“ Well guess what ?
They all did .
It wasn ’ t enough.
” The problem became the Swigs ’ obsession .
“ We wanted student debt cancellation to become a mainstream thought in America , ” Mary said , something she and her husband saw as a moral imperative .
In 2014 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during a yearlong fellowship at Harvard , where they worked alongside faculty and students in the law school examining which avenues might be available for debt cancellation .
While in Cambridge , they met with Warren , then in her second year on Capitol Hill , and pitched her their vision in the senator ’ s home .
“ She was very , very excited about it and gave us access to her entire office , ” Mary recalled .
Warren was already well-versed on the issue , thanks to her background as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bestseller , The Two-Income Trap , predicted the imminent crisis and blamed it on “ conservative policymakers ” who were “ making more loans available to families , ” comparing the system to “ throwing rocks to a drowning man.
” Her first bill in Washington aimed to cap student loan interest at the same low rate that the Federal Reserve offered to banks , and she had worked closely with Student Debt Crisis , another activist group , on legislation that would allow borrowers to refinance their existing loans .
By the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had begun working with the defrauded Corinthian student activists to pressure the Obama administration to forgive their loans through a provision known as “ borrower defense , ” which permits debts to be absolved if students have been cheated by their schools .
Warren was partly successful : Obama ’ s Education Department cancelled debts for 30,000 students by the time he left office .
( That progress has stalled under Trump . )
But Warren ’ s team soon realized the problems went far beyond for-profit schools .
The terms of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the behavior of servicers and debt collectors all raised concerns .
“ The more we dug , the more unfairness we ’ d find , ” recalled Julie Margetta Morgan , who was Warren ’ s top staffer on the issue .
( Morgan recently joined Warren ’ s presidential campaign . )
Meanwhile , Demos , a progressive think tank with strong Warren ties—her daughter Amelia chaired its board until last year—conducted research into how the student loan system helped exacerbate racial inequality .
A 2015 Demos paper concluded that young , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have student debt than their white peers , a result of higher financial need and a lower likelihood of completing their degrees .
The researchers argued that the racial wealth gap could be decreased if student loans held by families earning $ 50,000 and under were fully cancelled .
Anything less than that wouldn ’ t make much impact , according to their study ; anything more risked widening the wealth gap , because children from wealthier white families attend college at disproportionately high rates .
That spring , Sanders had hit the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ idea to tackle college affordability .
“ I want every kid in this country who has the ability to be able to go to a public college or university tuition free , ” he said in one debate .
Sanders also proposed lowering interest rates on existing student debt , but he stopped far short of calling for those loans to be wiped out .
Among White House contenders that year , only Green Party candidate Jill Stein embraced student debt forgiveness .
To move the issue forward , the Swigs realized they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debt was both feasible and beneficial .
And they were determined to push for universal cancellation , not the means-tested solution Demos had advocated .
“ When you really get into it , all of the means testing is testing the middle [ class ] against the lower-middle , ” Steven told me .
In 2017 , they commissioned their own report from a team that included economist Stephanie Kelton , an adviser to Sanders .
Kelton is a proponent of Modern Monetary Theory , a controversial idea that holds that since the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there is little danger posed by massive increases in government spending .
The study , published by the Levy Economics Institute of Bard College in February 2018 , concluded that cancelling all of the outstanding debt , then $ 1.4 trillion , would have a “ meaningful economic stimulus ” with only “ moderate effects on the federal deficit.
” Gross domestic product , it predicted , would increase by up to $ 108 billion per year , or half a percent of 2018 ’ s $ 20.5 trillion GDP .
Inflation and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cancellation happens , but “ not to problematic levels , ” and would taper off after the first few years , Kelton told me .
“ So in other words , where ’ s the problem ?
” she said .
( Other economists disagree . )
In 2018 , the Swigs also endowed a fellowship for Morgan , the former Warren Senate staffer , at the Roosevelt Institute .
Morgan and labor economist Marshall Steinbaum published several papers that put numbers behind a feeling that many borrowers had expressed : Student debt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those who were able to pay their bills on time .
This was particularly true for people of color .
Even worse , the education those loans purchased hadn ’ t actually increased earnings .
Data in hand , the Swigs began shopping their vision around Capitol Hill as the midterm elections neared .
An obvious stop , given Kelton ’ s involvement , was Sanders ’ office .
But he hesitated to sign on , according to people familiar with his thinking at the time .
Sanders agreed that cancelling debt made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the free-college side of things , which had evolved from a campaign platform into his 2018 College for All Act .
Besides , Sanders reasoned , student debt had always been Warren ’ s thing , and he didn ’ t want to step on her toes .
As he hit the campaign trail for a second go at the presidency , he told early crowds that “ perhaps ” he could cancel student debt .
The Swigs tried Warren ’ s office , too , where they were similarly met with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her own vision for debt cancellation , with contours that more closely resembled Demos ’ 2015 whitepaper that advocated for a means-tested approach .
Throughout the primary , Warren would focus her trove of policy proposals on addressing racial inequality , and this plan would be no exception .
Whatever Warren came up with , it would need to cancel as much debt as possible while also reducing the racial wealth gap .
In March , at the recommendation of Demos , the campaign reached out to Tom Shapiro , a sociologist at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ report , with a simple request : “ How much debt can we cancel in a design that also closes the racial wealth gap ?
” Shapiro recalled .
She wanted a proposal that cancelled all debt for at least 75 percent of borrowers .
It was the task of Shapiro and the team he assembled to determine the income thresholds eligible for cancellation and how much relief each borrower should receive .
Warren was an eager collaborator , reviewing proposals on plane rides between Cambridge , DC , and the campaign trail @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a program that would offer full debt cancellation—up to $ 50,000—to anyone making $ 100,000 or less .
People with incomes above $ 100,000 but below $ 250,000 would see a smaller proportion of their debt eliminated .
Warren released her plan at the end of April , paired with a free college program and a proposed investment in minority-serving institutions to “ help end racial disparities in college enrollment and resources.
” It would all be paid for by her “ ultra-millionaire ” tax on households with assets greater than $ 50 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a new ally in Omar , who during her 2018 campaign had openly discussed her own struggles with student debt .
A Somali immigrant , she had attended college in her late twenties while raising two small children .
When she entered Congress , she knew this was a bill she wanted to work on—and she wanted to do it with Sanders , who shared her commitment to bold , universal solutions .
In early 2019 , Omar ’ s office began working with Kelton and making overtures to Sanders ’ office , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it became clear that Warren wasn ’ t going to universally cancel all debt—and that a proposal to do just that , spearheaded by Omar , was moving ahead—Sanders got on board .
On a late June Friday , Sanders joined Omar and Rep. Pramila Jayapal ( D-Wash. ) , the House sponsor of his free college legislation , to discuss how they ’ d roll out the proposals together .
Eager and wide-eyed , Sanders wanted to talk about the messaging Omar had planned : What would Omar say when critics claimed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
People who take out student loans aren ’ t wealthy , Omar said , according to sources familiar with the conversation .
What about when people say it costs too much ?
Omar cited the Levy report , telling Sanders that cancellation would be an economic stimulus that paid for itself .
( The Sanders Senate office and campaign did not return requests for comment . )
In a Capitol Hill press conference the following Monday , Omar and Sanders introduced their legislation , paid for by a tax on Wall Street @ @ @ @ @ @ @ end the absurdity of sentencing an entire generation—the millennial generation—to a lifetime of debt for the ‘ crime ’ of doing the right thing : getting a college education , ” Sanders wrote in an op-ed .
The wonks behind Warren ’ s plan panned Sanders ’ proposal .
“ It ’ s a disaster for equity , ” Shapiro told me , arguing that bailing out those at the high end of the income scale would basically just hold the racial wealth gap steady .
But that argument took a hit in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economist , published a report suggesting that Sanders ’ plan would actually do more than Warren ’ s to close the wealth gap .
The Warren camp says it remains confident that the Massachusetts senator ’ s proposal would work as intended .
( Other experts chalked up the competing findings to different data sets on a quickly evolving , hard-to-measure topic . )
The Swigs , meanwhile , were disappointed that Warren , their chief Senate ally , had gone the means-tested route .
“ It basically says that a couple making @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ’ s where her cut-off point is [ for the maximum $ 50,000 cancellation ] , ” Mary said .
“ I ’ m very surprised.
” As the campaign has worn on , Sanders and Warren have continued to litigate the daylight that exists between their proposals .
Warren , her campaign noted in a statement , “ is the only candidate who has proposed using executive action ” to cancel student debt , rather than waiting for Congress to cooperate .
And she remains focused on race .
“ African-Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ money to go to school , more likely to borrow money while they ’ re in school , and have a harder time paying it off , ” Warren said during the December debate .
Sanders countered , “ I believe in the concept of universality , and one of the crises in America today is [ that ] people are sick and tired of filling out forms.
” But those contrasts can often seem insignificant compared to the gulf that exists on the issue between the two progressives and their Democratic opponents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and Michael Bloomberg have all declined to support broad student debt relief .
That hasn ’ t stopped Mary and Steven Swig from backing the former vice president ; the couple held a fundraiser for him in December .
As our conversation ended , I mentioned Biden ’ s platform , his work on the 2005 bankruptcy bill , and the activists who hold him responsible for that law ’ s onerous student debt provisions .
The Swigs pushed back , explaining that Biden himself had carried nearly $ 300,000 in debt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ He ’ s not with us , ” Mary explained , referring to the couple ’ s loan forgiveness push , “ but he is with the issue.
” That was in September .
This week , over email , I asked Mary if Biden was any closer to embracing the idea .
“ No luck yet , ” she said , “ but we ’ re still working on it .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Last April, the socialist magazine Jacobin had a message for its favorite presidential candidate: “As President, Bernie Sanders Should Cancel All Student Debt.” The secretary of Education, the magazine argued, could wipe out most of the $1.6 trillion in outstanding college loans “with the stroke of a pen.” As his reward, Jacobin predicted, Sanders would win “the lifelong loyalty” of millions of young Americans.
“We wanted student debt cancellation to become a mainstream thought in America.”
But it was Elizabeth Warren who first answered that call. Later that month, she unveiled a proposal to cancel up to $50,000 in student debt for borrowers who earn up to $250,000 per year. The plan would use an income-based sliding scale to determine how much assistance each person gets, a formula that would eliminate 40 percent of all student debt and provide relief to 95 percent of the country’s 45 million borrowers. Jacobin criticized the plan for its means-tested eligibility requirements but still credited Warren for taking the lead. Her proposal “isn’t perfect, but it’s the boldest so far,” the magazine said. “Bernie Sanders should take notice.”
He did. In June, the Vermont senator teamed up with Rep. Ilhan Omar to introduce a bill that went beyond Warren’s: It would cancel all student debt, for all borrowers, “no exceptions, no questions asked,” Omar said.
Wiping out student debt has become an increasingly central part of the 2020 debate. That’s a radical change from four years ago, when none of the Democratic contenders—not even Sanders—embraced it. This time around, polls have shown support for the idea, as activists have worked to transform the public image of the student debtor from lazy, handout-hungry Millennial to hardworking victim of predatory banks and bad government policy. Many of this cycle’s more moderate Democratic hopefuls have spoken out against wide-scale loan forgiveness, but even Pete Buttigieg—who’s spent the primaries criticizing Sanders’ and Warren’s proposals for tuition-free college—has a plan to cancel debt for students who attended for-profit colleges. Meanwhile, President Donald Trump, worried that the progressive debt relief plans could prove popular, has reportedly pushed aides to come up with their own solution to the issue.
This remarkable shift in the political conversation didn’t come out of nowhere. It has its roots in a tiny group of experts, activists, and donors who have worked with both Sanders and Warren to turn a nascent, left-wing pipedream into a plank of presidential platforms. But exactly how these proposals found their way into those platforms illustrates the dramatically different visions that the two leading progressives have brought to the campaign. For Warren, it’s about wonky expertise—the use of carefully calibrated policies to protect society’s most vulnerable from predation. For Sanders, it’s about channeling the energy of the left into sweeping policies that upend unjust systems in their entirety.
How did we end up in this place, where 13 percent of Americans owe a collective sum rivaling the GDP of Russia—an amount so large that it’s forcing young people to delay buying homes and having children? The root of the problem, of course, is the cost of college. Beginning in the 1980s, state governments began reining in their funding for higher education, causing the cost of attendance at four-year public schools to more than double between 1985 and 2015. Existing federal aid programs couldn’t keep pace, and in 1992, Congress established a new loan program to address that—one with generous borrowing limits and interest that began accruing immediately. As more middle-class families began to take out loans, the 2005 bankruptcy reform bill—which Joe Biden championed and Warren and Sanders opposed—made it nearly impossible for them to extricate themselves from ruinous loan payments.
Then 2008 arrived, and nearly 30 million borrowers ran straight into the buzzsaw of the financial crash. Students graduated into a dismal economy with few jobs available to pay off their loans. Some chose to weather the storm by attending expensive graduate programs that added five or six figures to their debt. States, meanwhile, responded by slashing higher education funding even further.
“The more we dug, the more unfairness we’d find.”
The 2008 Democratic presidential candidates put forth modest solutions to the quickly escalating problem. North Carolina Sen. John Edwards proposed one free year of college for “qualified students” on the condition that they “stay out of trouble.” Barack Obama suggested small increases to Pell Grants, a federal program for low-income students—a promise he made good on in his first term as part of broader reforms to federal student loan programs. His focus, however, remained on bailing out the banks.
Some activists deemed that response insufficient. In 2011, Strike Debt, an offshoot of the Occupy Wall Street movement, undertook an unsuccessful effort to get one million borrowers to stop paying back their loans. A spinoff effort called Debt Collective launched its own debt strike with 15 students who had attended Corinthian Colleges, a for-profit chain. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau—the watchdog agency that Warren first conceived of—later won a lawsuit alleging that Corinthians had defrauded students with predatory recruitment practices, falsified employment statistics, and risky loans.
Around this time, an unlikely pair stumbled onto the growing crisis: Mary and Steven Swig. The couple is part of the Bay Area’s oldest real estate dynasty, which had, at various points, owned iconic San Francisco landmarks, such as the luxury Fairmont Hotel chain. Mary, now 77, built a silk importing and lingerie business that was beloved by Oprah. Her husband, also 77, stepped away from the family business to found a graduate school offering public affairs and business degrees oriented around progressive values.
When I met the two of them—over a video call from their home in San Francisco’s tony Pacific Heights neighborhood—the couple’s casual sweatshirt ensembles betrayed little of their moneyed origins. The only real sign of their influence appeared on the massive coffee cups they were holding, which had a photograph of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on them. “This is from our nephew, when he got a job with Nancy in Washington,” Steven explained. The extended Swig family is familiar to Democratic operatives as reliable mega-donors, and Mary and Steven are no exception. They’ve contributed at least $2.7 million to federal Democratic efforts since the early 1980s, and Steven serves as Pelosi’s campaign treasurer. (They have also donated to Mother Jones.)
Neither Steven nor Mary ever had student debt. They both attended the University of California, Berkeley, in the 1960s and paid no more than $175 per semester, in activity and health care fees. The issue crossed their radar when their daughter Samantha announced that she planned to use an unexpected inheritance from her grandfather to pay off a friend’s six-figure student loan debt. Mary recounted the tale to her company’s employees, some of whom received substantial sums of money from the Swigs to help them to pay for their children’s college. “I said, ‘Well, isn’t it wonderful? I’m so excited that none of you guys have to worry about student debt for your kids,’” Mary recalled. “Well guess what? They all did. It wasn’t enough.”
The problem became the Swigs’ obsession. “We wanted student debt cancellation to become a mainstream thought in America,” Mary said, something she and her husband saw as a moral imperative. In 2014, they threw themselves into the project during a yearlong fellowship at Harvard, where they worked alongside faculty and students in the law school examining which avenues might be available for debt cancellation. While in Cambridge, they met with Warren, then in her second year on Capitol Hill, and pitched her their vision in the senator’s home. “She was very, very excited about it and gave us access to her entire office,” Mary recalled.
Warren was already well-versed on the issue, thanks to her background as a personal bankruptcy expert. Her 2004 bestseller, The Two-Income Trap, predicted the imminent crisis and blamed it on “conservative policymakers” who were “making more loans available to families,” comparing the system to “throwing rocks to a drowning man.” Her first bill in Washington aimed to cap student loan interest at the same low rate that the Federal Reserve offered to banks, and she had worked closely with Student Debt Crisis, another activist group, on legislation that would allow borrowers to refinance their existing loans.
By the time the Swigs approached her, Warren had begun working with the defrauded Corinthian student activists to pressure the Obama administration to forgive their loans through a provision known as “borrower defense,” which permits debts to be absolved if students have been cheated by their schools. Warren was partly successful: Obama’s Education Department cancelled debts for 30,000 students by the time he left office. (That progress has stalled under Trump.)
But Warren’s team soon realized the problems went far beyond for-profit schools. The terms of the loans, their interest rates, and the behavior of servicers and debt collectors all raised concerns. “The more we dug, the more unfairness we’d find,” recalled Julie Margetta Morgan, who was Warren’s top staffer on the issue. (Morgan recently joined Warren’s presidential campaign.)
Meanwhile, Demos, a progressive think tank with strong Warren ties—her daughter Amelia chaired its board until last year—conducted research into how the student loan system helped exacerbate racial inequality. A 2015 Demos paper concluded that young, black households were far more likely to have student debt than their white peers, a result of higher financial need and a lower likelihood of completing their degrees. The researchers argued that the racial wealth gap could be decreased if student loans held by families earning $50,000 and under were fully cancelled. Anything less than that wouldn’t make much impact, according to their study; anything more risked widening the wealth gap, because children from wealthier white families attend college at disproportionately high rates.
That spring, Sanders had hit the presidential campaign trail with his own bold idea to tackle college affordability. “I want every kid in this country who has the ability to be able to go to a public college or university tuition free,” he said in one debate. Sanders also proposed lowering interest rates on existing student debt, but he stopped far short of calling for those loans to be wiped out. Among White House contenders that year, only Green Party candidate Jill Stein embraced student debt forgiveness.
To move the issue forward, the Swigs realized they would need to demonstrate that cancelling student debt was both feasible and beneficial. And they were determined to push for universal cancellation, not the means-tested solution Demos had advocated. “When you really get into it, all of the means testing is testing the middle [class] against the lower-middle,” Steven told me. In 2017, they commissioned their own report from a team that included economist Stephanie Kelton, an adviser to Sanders. Kelton is a proponent of Modern Monetary Theory, a controversial idea that holds that since the government can print its own money, there is little danger posed by massive increases in government spending.
The study, published by the Levy Economics Institute of Bard College in February 2018, concluded that cancelling all of the outstanding debt, then $1.4 trillion, would have a “meaningful economic stimulus” with only “moderate effects on the federal deficit.” Gross domestic product, it predicted, would increase by up to $108 billion per year, or half a percent of 2018’s $20.5 trillion GDP. Inflation and interest rates would rise a bit after cancellation happens, but “not to problematic levels,” and would taper off after the first few years, Kelton told me. “So in other words, where’s the problem?” she said. (Other economists disagree.)
In 2018, the Swigs also endowed a fellowship for Morgan, the former Warren Senate staffer, at the Roosevelt Institute. Morgan and labor economist Marshall Steinbaum published several papers that put numbers behind a feeling that many borrowers had expressed: Student debt was a crushing burden, even for those who were able to pay their bills on time. This was particularly true for people of color. Even worse, the education those loans purchased hadn’t actually increased earnings.
Data in hand, the Swigs began shopping their vision around Capitol Hill as the midterm elections neared. An obvious stop, given Kelton’s involvement, was Sanders’ office. But he hesitated to sign on, according to people familiar with his thinking at the time. Sanders agreed that cancelling debt made sense, but his focus had been on the free-college side of things, which had evolved from a campaign platform into his 2018 College for All Act. Besides, Sanders reasoned, student debt had always been Warren’s thing, and he didn’t want to step on her toes. As he hit the campaign trail for a second go at the presidency, he told early crowds that “perhaps” he could cancel student debt.
The Swigs tried Warren’s office, too, where they were similarly met with reservations. Warren had already begun outlining her own vision for debt cancellation, with contours that more closely resembled Demos’ 2015 whitepaper that advocated for a means-tested approach. Throughout the primary, Warren would focus her trove of policy proposals on addressing racial inequality, and this plan would be no exception. Whatever Warren came up with, it would need to cancel as much debt as possible while also reducing the racial wealth gap.
In March, at the recommendation of Demos, the campaign reached out to Tom Shapiro, a sociologist at Brandeis University who worked on the Demos report, with a simple request: “How much debt can we cancel in a design that also closes the racial wealth gap?” Shapiro recalled. She wanted a proposal that cancelled all debt for at least 75 percent of borrowers. It was the task of Shapiro and the team he assembled to determine the income thresholds eligible for cancellation and how much relief each borrower should receive.
Warren was an eager collaborator, reviewing proposals on plane rides between Cambridge, DC, and the campaign trail, Shapiro said. They settled on a program that would offer full debt cancellation—up to $50,000—to anyone making $100,000 or less. People with incomes above $100,000 but below $250,000 would see a smaller proportion of their debt eliminated. Warren released her plan at the end of April, paired with a free college program and a proposed investment in minority-serving institutions to “help end racial disparities in college enrollment and resources.” It would all be paid for by her “ultra-millionaire” tax on households with assets greater than $50 million.
“It is time to end the absurdity of sentencing an entire generation—the millennial generation—to a lifetime of debt.”
Meanwhile, the Swigs found a new ally in Omar, who during her 2018 campaign had openly discussed her own struggles with student debt. A Somali immigrant, she had attended college in her late twenties while raising two small children. When she entered Congress, she knew this was a bill she wanted to work on—and she wanted to do it with Sanders, who shared her commitment to bold, universal solutions.
In early 2019, Omar’s office began working with Kelton and making overtures to Sanders’ office, even as he remained noncommittal. Once it became clear that Warren wasn’t going to universally cancel all debt—and that a proposal to do just that, spearheaded by Omar, was moving ahead—Sanders got on board.
On a late June Friday, Sanders joined Omar and Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), the House sponsor of his free college legislation, to discuss how they’d roll out the proposals together. Eager and wide-eyed, Sanders wanted to talk about the messaging Omar had planned: What would Omar say when critics claimed she’d be helping rich kids? People who take out student loans aren’t wealthy, Omar said, according to sources familiar with the conversation. What about when people say it costs too much? Omar cited the Levy report, telling Sanders that cancellation would be an economic stimulus that paid for itself. (The Sanders Senate office and campaign did not return requests for comment.)
In a Capitol Hill press conference the following Monday, Omar and Sanders introduced their legislation, paid for by a tax on Wall Street speculation. “It is time to end the absurdity of sentencing an entire generation—the millennial generation—to a lifetime of debt for the ‘crime’ of doing the right thing: getting a college education,” Sanders wrote in an op-ed.
The wonks behind Warren’s plan panned Sanders’ proposal. “It’s a disaster for equity,” Shapiro told me, arguing that bailing out those at the high end of the income scale would basically just hold the racial wealth gap steady. But that argument took a hit in July when Steinbaum, the Roosevelt Institute economist, published a report suggesting that Sanders’ plan would actually do more than Warren’s to close the wealth gap. The Warren camp says it remains confident that the Massachusetts senator’s proposal would work as intended. (Other experts chalked up the competing findings to different data sets on a quickly evolving, hard-to-measure topic.)
The Swigs, meanwhile, were disappointed that Warren, their chief Senate ally, had gone the means-tested route. “It basically says that a couple making $100,000 a year is rich because that’s where her cut-off point is [for the maximum $50,000 cancellation],” Mary said. “I’m very surprised.”
As the campaign has worn on, Sanders and Warren have continued to litigate the daylight that exists between their proposals. Warren, her campaign noted in a statement, “is the only candidate who has proposed using executive action” to cancel student debt, rather than waiting for Congress to cooperate. And she remains focused on race. “African-Americans are more likely to have to borrow money to go to school, more likely to borrow money while they’re in school, and have a harder time paying it off,” Warren said during the December debate. Sanders countered, “I believe in the concept of universality, and one of the crises in America today is [that] people are sick and tired of filling out forms.”
But those contrasts can often seem insignificant compared to the gulf that exists on the issue between the two progressives and their Democratic opponents. Biden, Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar, and Michael Bloomberg have all declined to support broad student debt relief.
That hasn’t stopped Mary and Steven Swig from backing the former vice president; the couple held a fundraiser for him in December. As our conversation ended, I mentioned Biden’s platform, his work on the 2005 bankruptcy bill, and the activists who hold him responsible for that law’s onerous student debt provisions. The Swigs pushed back, explaining that Biden himself had carried nearly $300,000 in debt from putting his children through college. “He’s not with us,” Mary explained, referring to the couple’s loan forgiveness push, “but he is with the issue.”
That was in September. This week, over email, I asked Mary if Biden was any closer to embracing the idea. “No luck yet,” she said, “but we’re still working on it.”
Image credit: Mother Jones illustration; Getty, Chip Somodevilla/Getty, Scott Olson/Getty


motherjones--2020-01-31--John Bolton Just Announced His Support of the Witnesses Who Testified in House Impeachment Hearings

While the Senate was winding up the question and answer phase of President Donald Trump ’ s impeachment trial , and the night before the Senate vote on whether to allow witnesses , former national security adviser John Bolton announced his support for the witnesses who already testified before the House .
“ All of them acted in the best interest of the country as they saw it and consistent to what they thought our policies were , ” Bolton said at a private event in Austin , according to Texas news station KXAN .
Bolton has been at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ witnesses .
After refusing to meet with House impeachment investigators , Bolton wrote in a draft of a book that Trump had directly tied military aid to Ukraine to that country ’ s investigations of the Bidens .
The New York Times reported on Bolton ’ s allegation on Sunday , the day after the White House mounted its defense in the Senate trial .
Since then , the question of calling him as a witness has been a central point of conflict between the House Impeachment Managers and White House lawyers .

“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--2020-01-31--California’s Controversial Housing Bill Just Died. It Wasn’t Just Because of NIMBYs.

The controversial housing bill , SB 50 , that ’ s been roiling California ’ s state legislature—which would have revolutionized land use and housing in the state—failed yet again in dramatic fashion Thursday afternoon .
It was three votes shy from passing out of the state Senate , following an attempt to pass it on Wednesday that also came up short .
In total , this is the third time the bill has failed in the past few years , and in the end , much of the opposition came from lawmakers hailing from the Los Angeles area .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ at all , perhaps indicating just how fraught the debate around SB 50 became .
Many will blame the bill ’ s defeat on the NIMBYs—who vocally argued against top-down control imposed by SB 50 and intrusion into their neighborhoods .
But it ’ s more complicated than that .
As I wrote earlier this week , a number of housing justice groups proved to be significant and deeply entrenched opposition , claiming that the legislation would further exacerbate displacement of low-income residents and that it didn ’ t do enough to protect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ justice groups and tenants rights organizations each wrote letters of opposition last week to bill author state Sen. Scott Wiener , as well as other lawmakers and Gov .
Gavin Newsom .
And when SB 50 came up for discussion on the senate floor Wednesday , several legislators voiced concerns about inequitable development .
Still , just because both the NIMBYs and housing justice advocates opposed SB 50 , it ’ d be a mistake to consider the two camps as allies .
NIMBYs want to keep major development ( and also sometimes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in order to preserve them as is .
Housing justice advocates are acutely aware and preoccupied with the glaring fact that low-income communities and communities of color are the first to be pushed or kept out of neighborhoods as they develop .
So while they found themselves as unlikely bedfellows here , the groups have completely different goals and motivations .
This is crucial to remember because the two factions are often mistakenly lumped together .
Some NIMBYs have even coopted housing justice language to justify their position .
And YIMBYs ( who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is more housing at all levels of affordability ) are just as happy to paint the two camps with the same brush because rich white homeowners in Beverly Hills who don ’ t want their neighborhood disturbed make for easier villains than advocates concerned with racially and economically inequitable housing development .
The distinction will continue to be important as California lawmakers reintroduce housing production legislation—something Senate President pro Tempore Toni Atkins , Wiener , and Newsom affirmed they ’ d be doing imminently following the SB 50 vote—and NIMBYs may still decline @ @ @ @ @ @ @ near them .
But resistant housing justice advocates might cooperate , if they feel the policy will help and not hurt vulnerable communities .
To conflate them is to gloss over the very real concerns about the widening wealth and affordability gap in the state .
The housing crisis isn ’ t going away , and it will certainly be a legislative focus over the next year ( and beyond ) .
As promised in a recent interview with Mother Jones , Wiener has gone right back to the legislative drawing board ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( placeholders to be be replaced with substantive legislation ) on Thursday afternoon .
The Assembly is also currently considering legislation that guarantees a legal right to housing for families and children .
Atkins , who supported SB 50 , challenged the bill ’ s critics to put forward their own legislation on Thursday : “ The opponents of SB 50 have real concerns , but have offered no substantive alternative with the same kind of scope of SB 50 .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
The controversial housing bill, SB 50, that’s been roiling California’s state legislature—which would have revolutionized land use and housing in the state—failed yet again in dramatic fashion Thursday afternoon. It was three votes shy from passing out of the state Senate, following an attempt to pass it on Wednesday that also came up short. In total, this is the third time the bill has failed in the past few years, and in the end, much of the opposition came from lawmakers hailing from the Los Angeles area. Several state senators opted not to vote at all, perhaps indicating just how fraught the debate around SB 50 became.
Many will blame the bill’s defeat on the NIMBYs—who vocally argued against top-down control imposed by SB 50 and intrusion into their neighborhoods. But it’s more complicated than that. As I wrote earlier this week, a number of housing justice groups proved to be significant and deeply entrenched opposition, claiming that the legislation would further exacerbate displacement of low-income residents and that it didn’t do enough to protect them. Coalitions of dozens of housing justice groups and tenants rights organizations each wrote letters of opposition last week to bill author state Sen. Scott Wiener, as well as other lawmakers and Gov. Gavin Newsom. And when SB 50 came up for discussion on the senate floor Wednesday, several legislators voiced concerns about inequitable development.
Still, just because both the NIMBYs and housing justice advocates opposed SB 50, it’d be a mistake to consider the two camps as allies. NIMBYs want to keep major development (and also sometimes low-income housing) out of their neighborhoods in order to preserve them as is. Housing justice advocates are acutely aware and preoccupied with the glaring fact that low-income communities and communities of color are the first to be pushed or kept out of neighborhoods as they develop. So while they found themselves as unlikely bedfellows here, the groups have completely different goals and motivations.
This is crucial to remember because the two factions are often mistakenly lumped together. Some NIMBYs have even coopted housing justice language to justify their position. And YIMBYs (who believe the answer to the housing crisis is more housing at all levels of affordability) are just as happy to paint the two camps with the same brush because rich white homeowners in Beverly Hills who don’t want their neighborhood disturbed make for easier villains than advocates concerned with racially and economically inequitable housing development.
The distinction will continue to be important as California lawmakers reintroduce housing production legislation—something Senate President pro Tempore Toni Atkins, Wiener, and Newsom affirmed they’d be doing imminently following the SB 50 vote. Because while NIMBYs may still decline to get on board with more development near them, resistant housing justice advocates might cooperate, if they feel the policy will help and not hurt vulnerable communities. To conflate them is to gloss over the very real concerns about the widening wealth and affordability gap in the state.
The housing crisis isn’t going away, and it will certainly be a legislative focus over the next year (and beyond). As promised in a recent interview with Mother Jones, Wiener has gone right back to the legislative drawing board; he introduced two housing policy spot bills (placeholders to be be replaced with substantive legislation) on Thursday afternoon. The Assembly is also currently considering legislation that guarantees a legal right to housing for families and children.
Atkins, who supported SB 50, challenged the bill’s critics to put forward their own legislation on Thursday: “The opponents of SB 50 have real concerns, but have offered no substantive alternative with the same kind of scope of SB 50.”