motherjones--2020-04-03--The Economic Crash Is Going to Be Particularly Awful for Women and People of Color

The 6.6 million Americans who filed for unemployment last week have earned themselves a grim superlative : They , along with the 3.2 million people who filed the week before , mark the fastest-growing unemployment disaster in recorded US history .
These early numbers don ’ t tell us exactly who these jobless workers are , but we have some clues .
Major retailers , which have closed stores after government orders to shelter in place , have furloughed staff without pay .
There have been sweeping layoffs in the food service industry , which employs an estimated 15.6 million @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and most states limit restaurants to takeout only .
These layoffs have been especially bad for two groups—namely , the same people who were particularly screwed over in the last recession : women and people of color .
National unemployment numbers haven ’ t been broken down by demographics yet , but state numbers are looking dire for these groups .
Minnesota has reported that women make up nearly two-thirds of new unemployment applicants .
In pre-pandemic times , they typically accounted for only a third of them .
The retail industry accounts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ jobs , and the retailers most affected employ the most women .
Almost half of the workers employed by restaurants are people of color—and those workers are concentrated in the sector ’ s poorest paid positions .
The low pay that accompanies these positions doesn ’ t really allow for the sort of long-term savings that could soften the blow of a lost job .
The median hourly wage for a retail sales worker , for example , is $ 11.70 , and it ’ s just $ 10.47 for restaurant servers .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ unemployment benefits for the millions of Americans who ’ d lose their livelihoods as the pandemic raged , but for women and workers of color , that might not be enough .
That ’ s because they ’ re likely to be among those who were never made whole after the Great Recession 12 years ago .
“ Recovery had been uneven , ” says Nicole Mason , president and CEO of the Institute for Women ’ s Policy Research .
“ The gains of the economy did not really trickle down to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ways that we might have expected.
” The end of the last recession marked the longest sustained stretch of economic growth in US history , but the benefits weren ’ t reaped universally across all Americans .
A report from IWPR in September 2011 found that 39 percent of women—including 52 percent of Black women and 48 percent of Hispanic women—reported difficulties in paying monthly utility bills , compared to just 26 percent of men who said the same .
Even as the wider economy improved , those gaps persisted .
A 2017 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ found that , adjusted for inflation , Black men and women across all races are earning less than they did in 2007 .
What led to such an uneven recovery ?
Much of it has to do with how the recession reshaped the jobs landscape .
Positions in the public sector , which historically were committed to fair and inclusive hiring , faced steep cuts as states committed to austerity measures , and many of those jobs never came back .
The gig economy—premised on part-time , low-wage , benefits-free labor—ascended in its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who , like all women , are also overrepresented in minimum wage work .
Beyond wages , the wealth of those populations also took a tremendous hit during the Great Recession .
Both women and people of color have less wealth than white men and were more likely to dip into their retirement or other long-term savings accounts to stay afloat .
Crucially , homeownership and property values never fully recovered , particularly for households of color .
In 2009 , the median Black household wealth dropped 53 percent , compared with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Home equity is used to start a small business , pay for retirement , and pay for college , ” Mason says .
“ The last recession wiped all of that out.
” And so a wealth gap that persisted long before the Great Recession widened in its aftermath .
In 2010 , for example , the average white household had eight times the wealth of the average Black household .
In 2014 , white families had 13 times the wealth of their Black counterparts .
Those setbacks now form the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crisis .
Women , still often relegated to the role of family caretaker , will find themselves particularly squeezed as dwindling workforce meets new demands at home .
“ This is a gendered crisis , ” explains Kate Bahn , director of labor market policy at the Washington Center for Equitable Growth .
“ They ’ re facing a double burden of being really strapped in the paid economy as well as trying to care for their family members—maybe children who now need homeschooling , or elderly parents and a spouse at risk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ care coverage put these populations in a precarious position .
Roughly a quarter of women delayed or declined medical attention due to costs in 2017 , while only a fifth of men did the same , according to a Kaiser Family Foundation survey .
That same year , a third of Black households skipped health care , compare to just 21 percent of white households , according to the Federal Reserve ’ s Survey of Household Economics and Decisionmaking .
“ And that was in the good times , ” says Christian Weller @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the University of Massachusetts , Boston .
“ You can imagine what decisions people are making now.
” The natural conclusion of these conspiring circumstances leads to a doomsday scenario .
Poverty rates will rise , Weller predicts , as people cut back on utilities , food , and prescription drugs necessary for preventative or long-term care .
“ Right now , there are a lot of things going wrong at the same time , ” Weller says .
“ All of these inequalities already existed—they ’ re just magnified right now.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ last week tried counteract the worst impacts of the current crisis , extending unemployment benefits to gig , freelance , and part-time workers for the first time ever .
It also suspended six months ’ worth of payments on federally held student loans , a burden that disproportionately affects borrowers of color .
But the experts I spoke with identified key shortcomings .
Bahn wishes there had been more of an emphasis on labor standards and compensation , particularly for those who are on the frontlines of the pandemic response .
Many of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in health care , regularly exposed to the deadly virus .
Roughly three-quarters of hospital and health care workers are women , and while most of them are white , Black and Latinx workers are vastly overrepresented among home care and nursing home employees .
“ I ’ m just horrified thinking about people making $ 20,000 a year while dealing with the most vulnerable populations , ” Bahn says .
Darrick Hamilton , an economist who studies disparities across race , says he ’ s particularly concerned about the one-time payment of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the federal government .
He says it ’ s neither sufficiently large nor sustained enough to keep people whole until the economy recovers .
Hamilton also raised concerns about the small business loan program , which is already under scrutiny for how it plans to distribute emergency funds to firms .
“ Various small businesses—and particularly those that are black owned—are not capitalized to be able to withstand an economic downturn where you shut their business down for an extended period of time , ” he says .
“ I don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from 2008 at all , ” IWPR ’ s Mason tells me .
“ We ’ re still targeting the largest amount of support for big businesses , and we ’ re doing so little for the people who will be suffering long after those businesses have rebounded .
”

The 6.6 million Americans who filed for unemployment last week have earned themselves a grim superlative: They, along with the 3.2 million people who filed the week before, mark the fastest-growing unemployment disaster in recorded US history.
These early numbers don’t tell us exactly who these jobless workers are, but we have some clues. Major retailers, which have closed stores after government orders to shelter in place, have furloughed staff without pay. There have been sweeping layoffs in the food service industry, which employs an estimated 15.6 million Americans, as major suppliers cut staff and most states limit restaurants to takeout only.
These layoffs have been especially bad for two groups—namely, the same people who were particularly screwed over in the last recession: women and people of color. National unemployment numbers haven’t been broken down by demographics yet, but state numbers are looking dire for these groups. Minnesota has reported that women make up nearly two-thirds of new unemployment applicants. In pre-pandemic times, they typically accounted for only a third of them.
The retail industry accounts for 10 percent of all private sector jobs, and the retailers most affected employ the most women. Almost half of the workers employed by restaurants are people of color—and those workers are concentrated in the sector’s poorest paid positions. The low pay that accompanies these positions doesn’t really allow for the sort of long-term savings that could soften the blow of a lost job. The median hourly wage for a retail sales worker, for example, is $11.70, and it’s just $10.47 for restaurant servers. Congress passed legislation last month to increase unemployment benefits for the millions of Americans who’d lose their livelihoods as the pandemic raged, but for women and workers of color, that might not be enough. That’s because they’re likely to be among those who were never made whole after the Great Recession 12 years ago.
“Recovery had been uneven,” says Nicole Mason, president and CEO of the Institute for Women’s Policy Research. “The gains of the economy did not really trickle down to women or people of color in the ways that we might have expected.”
The end of the last recession marked the longest sustained stretch of economic growth in US history, but the benefits weren’t reaped universally across all Americans. A report from IWPR in September 2011 found that 39 percent of women—including 52 percent of Black women and 48 percent of Hispanic women—reported difficulties in paying monthly utility bills, compared to just 26 percent of men who said the same. Even as the wider economy improved, those gaps persisted. A 2017 analysis from the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute found that, adjusted for inflation, Black men and women across all races are earning less than they did in 2007.
What led to such an uneven recovery? Much of it has to do with how the recession reshaped the jobs landscape. Positions in the public sector, which historically were committed to fair and inclusive hiring, faced steep cuts as states committed to austerity measures, and many of those jobs never came back. The gig economy—premised on part-time, low-wage, benefits-free labor—ascended in its place, disproportionately employing workers of color, who, like all women, are also overrepresented in minimum wage work.
Beyond wages, the wealth of those populations also took a tremendous hit during the Great Recession. Both women and people of color have less wealth than white men and were more likely to dip into their retirement or other long-term savings accounts to stay afloat. Crucially, homeownership and property values never fully recovered, particularly for households of color. In 2009, the median Black household wealth dropped 53 percent, compared with just the 17 percent white households lost. “Home equity is used to start a small business, pay for retirement, and pay for college,” Mason says. “The last recession wiped all of that out.”
And so a wealth gap that persisted long before the Great Recession widened in its aftermath. In 2010, for example, the average white household had eight times the wealth of the average Black household. In 2014, white families had 13 times the wealth of their Black counterparts.
Those setbacks now form the fragile foundation for workers weathering this latest crisis. Women, still often relegated to the role of family caretaker, will find themselves particularly squeezed as dwindling workforce meets new demands at home. “This is a gendered crisis,” explains Kate Bahn, director of labor market policy at the Washington Center for Equitable Growth. “They’re facing a double burden of being really strapped in the paid economy as well as trying to care for their family members—maybe children who now need homeschooling, or elderly parents and a spouse at risk of getting sick.”
Disparities in health care coverage put these populations in a precarious position. Roughly a quarter of women delayed or declined medical attention due to costs in 2017, while only a fifth of men did the same, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation survey. That same year, a third of Black households skipped health care, compare to just 21 percent of white households, according to the Federal Reserve’s Survey of Household Economics and Decisionmaking. “And that was in the good times,” says Christian Weller, an expert in labor and inequality at the University of Massachusetts, Boston. “You can imagine what decisions people are making now.”
The natural conclusion of these conspiring circumstances leads to a doomsday scenario. Poverty rates will rise, Weller predicts, as people cut back on utilities, food, and prescription drugs necessary for preventative or long-term care. “Right now, there are a lot of things going wrong at the same time,” Weller says. “All of these inequalities already existed—they’re just magnified right now.”
The emergency relief bill Congress passed last week tried counteract the worst impacts of the current crisis, extending unemployment benefits to gig, freelance, and part-time workers for the first time ever. It also suspended six months’ worth of payments on federally held student loans, a burden that disproportionately affects borrowers of color.
But the experts I spoke with identified key shortcomings. Bahn wishes there had been more of an emphasis on labor standards and compensation, particularly for those who are on the frontlines of the pandemic response. Many of those who are still gainfully employed work in health care, regularly exposed to the deadly virus. Roughly three-quarters of hospital and health care workers are women, and while most of them are white, Black and Latinx workers are vastly overrepresented among home care and nursing home employees. “I’m just horrified thinking about people making $20,000 a year while dealing with the most vulnerable populations,” Bahn says.
Darrick Hamilton, an economist who studies disparities across race, says he’s particularly concerned about the one-time payment of $1,200 most adults will receive from the federal government. He says it’s neither sufficiently large nor sustained enough to keep people whole until the economy recovers. Hamilton also raised concerns about the small business loan program, which is already under scrutiny for how it plans to distribute emergency funds to firms. “Various small businesses—and particularly those that are black owned—are not capitalized to be able to withstand an economic downturn where you shut their business down for an extended period of time,” he says.
“I don’t think we’ve learned the lessons from 2008 at all,” IWPR’s Mason tells me. “We’re still targeting the largest amount of support for big businesses, and we’re doing so little for the people who will be suffering long after those businesses have rebounded.”


motherjones--2020-04-03--My Sister Has Been a Travel Agent for 30 Years. We Talked About Her Work Life During the Pandemic.

Michelle Mazzie has been a travel agent in Park City , Utah , for 30 years , serving mostly corporate clients and some leisure travelers .
She also happens to be my sister .
So when the travel industry became one of the first business casualties of the novel coronavirus , I started interviewing her about what that looked like on the ground as the pandemic first took hold .
Our first interview was on March 6 .
That ’ s the day Austin canceled its annual music and ideas festival South by Southwest .
That ’ s also the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 21 people aboard a Princess cruise ship were infected with the virus .
President Donald Trump said he wanted to prevent it from docking in California because , “ I don ’ t need to have the numbers [ of US cases ] double because of one ship that wasn ’ t our fault.
” Businesses were canceling work travel ; big conferences in Las Vegas and elsewhere were halted .
I ’ d planned to write up the interview and post it soon after .
But the travel industry proved to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was true on March 6 turned was totally different a few days later .
Within a week of that first conversation , every major sporting event in the country , from professional hockey to college basketball , got canceled .
Schools closed , the economy started slowing , and the airlines were panicking .
I couldn ’ t update my story fast enough to keep up , so we just kept talking .
I ’ ve continued to interview my sister several times over the past month about what it ’ s been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ industry that is imploding , with projected losses of more than $ 400 billion in 2020 .
Here ’ s what she told me .
( Our interviews have been edited for clarity . )
Can you describe what it ’ s been like to be on the frontlines of the travel industry during the pandemic ?
It ’ s been a nightmare .
People are just exhausted .
We ’ ve been working night and day to get people home .
We ’ re trying to balance the needs of our clients @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vendor has in place .
But the guidelines have been changing multiple times a day .
I feel like I need a law degree to figure out the logistics .
I really don ’ t want to make an error that will cost my company money in the long run .
It ’ s not an easy job .
When the airlines won ’ t answer their phones , we ’ re the ones that are fielding everything .
My company did layoffs for the first time in its 35-year history , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ largest travel management company in Utah laid off 200 people a few weeks ago .
It ’ s been hard to watch the whole world come down like that .
When I first started talking to you about the industry in early March , you said you had friends in the travel business who were traveling around a lot right now and saying how great it was because there were no crowds .
Has that changed ?
Yep .
Now people are definitely canceling their trips .
I feel like there wasn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ started happening .
I have a friend who was stuck on a ship .
She went to Antarctica .
They were supposed to disembark on March 17 , but no one would let them dock .
They sent her to the Falkland Islands .
She finally got home on the 27th .
What sorts of issues have your clients run into in the past month ?
I had a gal call , and she was actually in Seoul [ just before all the travel bans ] and was flying to Melbourne .
She @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to go , if she was going to be stuck there .
Her flight went , and I think she was wondering if they were even going to let her get off the plane connecting through Sydney .
She made it .
But in Seoul , she was very concerned she ’ d be stuck there for 28 days .
That would be so interesting because do you stay in a hotel room for 28 days and who pays for that ?
How much does it cost to stay in a hotel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Are people pissed off about having to cancel or postpone trips ?
Pissed off ?
No , they ’ re mostly scared .
I haven ’ t had anybody that ’ s been pissed off .
Leisure travelers , they ’ re definitely not pissed off .
It ’ s more of a concern thing .
I have heard that getting your travel canceled or changed , especially with the airlines right now is a nightmare .
The hold times to call sound really long .
Are people freaking out about this ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ out that this is why you should use a travel agent .
We could get [ a flight ] canceled and get it all figured out for you a lot faster , so you don ’ t have to wait four hours on hold with Delta .
There is actually value in a travel professional .
We will sit on hold for four hours for you .
People who don ’ t book with us have actually called and said , “ Is there something you can do ?
” We help them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s hard when we didn ’ t do the booking originally .
What sorts of interesting questions are you getting ?
Somebody asked me , “ Do you think the airports will be empty when I go ?
” I said , “ I sure hope so !
” They want to know , “ Will I get a whole row to myself ?
” The Trump administration has made a number of missteps during this crisis that seem to have had an adverse impact on travel , like when he announced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , with no advance warnings , that travel from Europe to the US would be banned .
Lots of people paid ridiculous amounts of money to get home before the ban took effect , and then many got stuck in crowded lines at the airport when they arrived in the US .
Have moments like that made things worse for travel agents ?
It has gotten worse .
After he gave his speech , travelers went into a panic , and they were calling wanting to know what he meant , and we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no idea what he meant .
Nobody knew .
On the [ after-hours ] lifesavers line , it was just panic .
When we have all these people who are already in Europe , and then he comes out and says there ’ s a ban , and now they can ’ t come home .
It ’ s been a lot .
People were upset .
They really took it out on the lifesavers line .
You couldn ’ t pay me enough to go on a cruise , even before the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been shocked to see that right up until the companies were forced to shut down people were going on them .
Are you seeing any sort of change of opinions about cruise ships now that so many people have gotten sick on them ?
Nobody has said they won ’ t get on a cruise ship .
They are more just like , “ When do you think we ’ ll be able to go ?
” People love cruising .
Have you ever seen anything remotely like this before ?
There was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and then people didn ’ t want to travel .
That was interesting .
Then there was SARS in 2003 and that cost $ 50 billion in travel .
I think it was SARS that really hit the travel industry .
But they say that this is more comparable to 9/11 as far as what the travel industry is going to lose , and that ’ s a lot .
Are you worried about your job ?
My company has a contingency plan .
I feel pretty confident in their plan , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ come back because it always does .
I feel like we have to be here for our travelers and the corporations we work with .
I don ’ t know how long it will go on .
That ’ s the unknown of it , right ?
When the outbreak first started to get really serious , people were saying there were travel deals to be had .
Were there any deals ?
And are they now all just a fantasy ?
There are a few deals now .
I think if you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could get a really good deal !
But then you land in DC or somewhere , and you have to be quarantined for 14 days .
I think you can fly from DC to Salt Lake now for like $ 200 for immediate travel or in June , to Hawaii from SLC is $ 400 .
Soooo there are a few deals .
But everybody should just stay home .
Is anyone actually traveling anymore ?
It ’ s funny because every day , I ’ m so busy still doing cancellations .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ trip , I ’ m like , “ How do I do that ?
” We ’ re like , “ You actually want to buy something ?
Are you sure ?
” That ’ s the first question .
I am happy to issue a ticket because I know next week I ’ ll be canceling .
It will give me something to do .
One of the hardest things I ’ ve found about the pandemic is the way it ’ s put life on hold .
I ’ m a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and this time of year we ’ re usually making all sorts of plans : summer camp , vacations , trips to see you .
What do you tell people who are in this weird purgatory ?
You really have to go on like everything ’ s fine and make your summer plans .
You could interview me now about the Utah toilet paper shortage .

Michelle Mazzie has been a travel agent in Park City, Utah, for 30 years, serving mostly corporate clients and some leisure travelers. She also happens to be my sister. So when the travel industry became one of the first business casualties of the novel coronavirus, I started interviewing her about what that looked like on the ground as the pandemic first took hold.
Our first interview was on March 6. That’s the day Austin canceled its annual music and ideas festival South by Southwest. That’s also the day Vice President Mike Pence announced that 21 people aboard a Princess cruise ship were infected with the virus. President Donald Trump said he wanted to prevent it from docking in California because, “I don’t need to have the numbers [of US cases] double because of one ship that wasn’t our fault.” Businesses were canceling work travel; big conferences in Las Vegas and elsewhere were halted. I’d planned to write up the interview and post it soon after. But the travel industry proved to be a moving target. Everything we thought was true on March 6 turned was totally different a few days later.
Within a week of that first conversation, every major sporting event in the country, from professional hockey to college basketball, got canceled. Schools closed, the economy started slowing, and the airlines were panicking. I couldn’t update my story fast enough to keep up, so we just kept talking. I’ve continued to interview my sister several times over the past month about what it’s been like to be a part of an industry that is imploding, with projected losses of more than $400 billion in 2020. Here’s what she told me. (Our interviews have been edited for clarity.)
Can you describe what it’s been like to be on the frontlines of the travel industry during the pandemic?
It’s been a nightmare. People are just exhausted. We’ve been working night and day to get people home. We’re trying to balance the needs of our clients while following the guidelines that each travel vendor has in place. But the guidelines have been changing multiple times a day. I feel like I need a law degree to figure out the logistics. I really don’t want to make an error that will cost my company money in the long run. It’s not an easy job. When the airlines won’t answer their phones, we’re the ones that are fielding everything. My company did layoffs for the first time in its 35-year history, and it’s my understanding that the largest travel management company in Utah laid off 200 people a few weeks ago. It’s been hard to watch the whole world come down like that.
When I first started talking to you about the industry in early March, you said you had friends in the travel business who were traveling around a lot right now and saying how great it was because there were no crowds. Has that changed?
Yep. Now people are definitely canceling their trips. I feel like there wasn’t a clear direction when all this started happening. I have a friend who was stuck on a ship. She went to Antarctica. They were supposed to disembark on March 17, but no one would let them dock. They sent her to the Falkland Islands. She finally got home on the 27th.
What sorts of issues have your clients run into in the past month?
I had a gal call, and she was actually in Seoul [just before all the travel bans] and was flying to Melbourne. She was worried her flight wasn’t going to go, if she was going to be stuck there. Her flight went, and I think she was wondering if they were even going to let her get off the plane connecting through Sydney. She made it. But in Seoul, she was very concerned she’d be stuck there for 28 days. That would be so interesting because do you stay in a hotel room for 28 days and who pays for that? How much does it cost to stay in a hotel room for 28 days and eat?
Are people pissed off about having to cancel or postpone trips?
Pissed off? No, they’re mostly scared. I haven’t had anybody that’s been pissed off. Leisure travelers, they’re definitely not pissed off. It’s more of a concern thing.
I have heard that getting your travel canceled or changed, especially with the airlines right now is a nightmare. The hold times to call sound really long. Are people freaking out about this?
I feel like I should really point out that this is why you should use a travel agent. We could get [a flight] canceled and get it all figured out for you a lot faster, so you don’t have to wait four hours on hold with Delta. There is actually value in a travel professional. We will sit on hold for four hours for you. People who don’t book with us have actually called and said, “Is there something you can do?” We help them the best we can, but it’s hard when we didn’t do the booking originally.
What sorts of interesting questions are you getting?
Somebody asked me, “Do you think the airports will be empty when I go?” I said, “I sure hope so!” They want to know, “Will I get a whole row to myself?”
The Trump administration has made a number of missteps during this crisis that seem to have had an adverse impact on travel, like when he announced during a March 11 prime-time TV address, with no advance warnings, that travel from Europe to the US would be banned. Lots of people paid ridiculous amounts of money to get home before the ban took effect, and then many got stuck in crowded lines at the airport when they arrived in the US. Have moments like that made things worse for travel agents?
It has gotten worse. After he gave his speech, travelers went into a panic, and they were calling wanting to know what he meant, and we didn’t know. We had no idea what he meant. Nobody knew. On the [after-hours] lifesavers line, it was just panic. When we have all these people who are already in Europe, and then he comes out and says there’s a ban, and now they can’t come home. It’s been a lot. People were upset. They really took it out on the lifesavers line.
You couldn’t pay me enough to go on a cruise, even before the coronavirus outbreak. So I’ve been shocked to see that right up until the companies were forced to shut down people were going on them. Are you seeing any sort of change of opinions about cruise ships now that so many people have gotten sick on them?
Nobody has said they won’t get on a cruise ship. They are more just like, “When do you think we’ll be able to go?” People love cruising.
Have you ever seen anything remotely like this before?
There was 9/11 when all the flights were cancelled, and then people didn’t want to travel. That was interesting. Then there was SARS in 2003 and that cost $50 billion in travel. I think it was SARS that really hit the travel industry. But they say that this is more comparable to 9/11 as far as what the travel industry is going to lose, and that’s a lot.
“I feel like we have to be here for our travelers and the corporations we work with.”
Are you worried about your job?
My company has a contingency plan. I feel pretty confident in their plan, and I honestly believe that travel will come back because it always does. I feel like we have to be here for our travelers and the corporations we work with. I don’t know how long it will go on. That’s the unknown of it, right?
When the outbreak first started to get really serious, people were saying there were travel deals to be had. Were there any deals? And are they now all just a fantasy?
There are a few deals now. I think if you wanted to try to fly tomorrow you could get a really good deal! But then you land in DC or somewhere, and you have to be quarantined for 14 days. I think you can fly from DC to Salt Lake now for like $200 for immediate travel or in June, to Hawaii from SLC is $400. Soooo there are a few deals. But everybody should just stay home.
Is anyone actually traveling anymore?
It’s funny because every day, I’m so busy still doing cancellations. If somebody calls to book a new trip, I’m like, “How do I do that?” We’re like, “You actually want to buy something? Are you sure?” That’s the first question. I am happy to issue a ticket because I know next week I’ll be canceling. It will give me something to do.
One of the hardest things I’ve found about the pandemic is the way it’s put life on hold. I’m a big planner, as you know, and this time of year we’re usually making all sorts of plans: summer camp, vacations, trips to see you. What do you tell people who are in this weird purgatory?
You really have to go on like everything’s fine and make your summer plans. You could interview me now about the Utah toilet paper shortage.


motherjones--2020-04-03--The 2020 Election Is Now About the Coronavirus. Here’s How Progressive Groups Plan to Win It.

On March 8 , a group of progressive opinion researchers wrapped up three days of polling American public attitudes on the coronavirus .
By March 11 , the day Navigator Research released those findings , the World Health Organization officially elevated the crisis to pandemic status , the NBA canceled its season , and Tom Hanks and Rita Wilson announced they had COVID-19 .
That night , Trump gave an Oval Office address that failed to quell fears , setting off a market spiral the following morning .
“ I remember feeling like we did a survey that is already @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” says Bryan Bennett , the director of polling and analytics at the Hub Project , a progressive group that houses the Navigator Research project .
“ The only comparable experience , at least in my career , was during the initial part of the financial crisis .
But this was just a whole other level.
” As most Americans ’ routines were upended by the virus , so was the political landscape .
Even though the November elections were still eight months away , the coronavirus made it clear to progressive operatives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ role to play , and that they could make a big difference by launching ad campaigns that define Trump on the election ’ s new and biggest question .
Health care and the economy , already front-and-center on voters ’ minds , were now even more urgent , and tied to a larger debate , the outcome of which will likely determine who occupies the White House next year : Whether President Donald Trump has failed in anticipating and responding to the crisis .
“ The narrative Democrats set now forms the prism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” says Daniel Scarvalone , a digital strategist at the Democratic digital firm Bully Pulpit Interactive .
“ Not all Americans are going to watch the news and come to their own conclusions that Donald Trump is doing a bad job .
They need their elected officials , state or city leaders , and campaigns to draw the connection between the Trump administration ’ s actions and the fact that their kids can ’ t go to school .
And that ’ s the fundamental challenge Democrats have to deal with.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ major role to play in campaigns , and never more so given current campaign finance laws that allow super PACs and dark money groups to collect and spend unlimited sums .
Often they play the bad cop , going negative and attacking the politician they oppose while allowing their preferred candidate to stay positive and appear above the fray .
In 2012 , the Democratic super PAC Priorities USA Action laid into Mitt Romney with ads portraying him as a heartless capitalist who shut down midwestern factories to turn a profit that defined @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the election and helped sink his campaign .
On March 12 , a group dedicated to preserving and expanding the Affordable Care Act , called Protect Our Care , released the first political television ad that mentioned the coronavirus .
It targeted Sen. Steve Daines ( R-MT ) for his opposition to Obamacare .
Montanans already worried about health care were now also worried about coronavirus , the ad ’ s narrator intoned .
But Protect Our Care quickly realized that as a group focused on health care , they had a larger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ messaging to include the country ’ s biggest contest by setting up what it calls its “ Coronavirus War Room , ” a messaging hub meant to hold Trump accountable for the ways he has made the crisis worse .
Last week , it began blasting off memos targeting Trump to the press while also acting as a messaging clearinghouse for other groups .
Protect Our Care also started hosting calls three times a week with progressive groups to get everyone on the same talking points .
Brad Woodhouse , the group ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ week ’ s Wednesday call hit its limit of 100 participants .
“ Our focus at Protect Our Care and the Coronavirus War Room is largely on the accountability piece and with that it ’ s almost exclusively focused on Trump , ” says Woodhouse , a longtime Democratic operative .
“ You can ’ t wait until October to tell the American people about how roundly he screwed this up.
” Woodhouse sums up the core messages pushed from the war room : “ He screwed it up from the beginning , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mistakes , he ’ s downplayed the crisis , he doesn ’ t listen to experts , and that continues to make the crisis worse.
” You can see the strategy deployed in the emails his team blasts out , often three a day , which attack Trump on a range of issues , including the administration ’ s failure to prepare by ramping up testing and the manufacture of medical equipment and protective gear ; its elimination of key offices and positions charged with pandemic preparedness ; and by elevating Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for ventilators , that contradict medical experts .
Meanwhile , the Trump campaign has been churning out press releases with the opposite message .
On March 19 , the campaign sent out a timeline of the “ Trump administration ’ s decisive actions to combat the coronavirus , ” including travel advisories regarding China and the dissemination of tests—though extensive reporting has shown the administration critically bungled testing for months , leading to a deficit that is still crippling the response .
In multiple emails from the campaign ’ s “ Trump War @ @ @ @ @ @ @ finger at the media , labeling it “ dishonest.
” In the past few days , the campaign has claimed that the Obama administration failed to stockpile medical equipment and blaming then Vice President Biden .
The president ’ s message has been embraced by conservative outlets , most notably Fox News .
Like Trump , the network initially downplayed the crisis , with Sean Hannity , its most-watched host , calling the pandemic a hoax .
( Nine days later , he falsely claimed he never had . )
But eventually , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in line with public health warnings about the severity of the pandemic , but that nonetheless accommodated pro-Trump messaging .
The network has aggressively pushed the anti-Malaria drugs chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine as a possible treatment for COVID-19 just as Trump has done , without mentioning that there is scant evidence to support their use .
In the past few days , Fox hosts and guests have also floated the idea on air and in social media posts that claims of overwhelmed hospitals are a conspiracy , circulating grassroots reports of purportedly empty local @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The network also gave cover to an idea floated by Trump , but quickly-abandoned , that older Americans would be proud to sacrifice their lives to protect the economy for younger people .
“ One thing has been clear from the last five years of Trump , which is that he has enough right-wing information channels that even when we think he will implode , he rarely does , ” says Jesse Ferguson , a Democratic consultant .
“ They ’ re gon na want to crown him the King of Corona like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happens.
” To fight pro-Trump narratives , Democratic message warriors are looking for fresh data on how his words and actions are hitting home amid the crisis .
For nearly two years , Navigator Research , which is operated by two progressive polling firms , Global Strategy Group and GBAO Research and Strategy in consultation with the Hub Project , has put out monthly polls to help guide progressive messaging on a variety of issues .
Two weeks ago , the project decided to scrap the monthly poll and set up a daily @ @ @ @ @ @ @ toward the coronavirus and Trump ’ s handling of the crisis .
“ We can ’ t handle this appropriately in real time as a progressive movement , as Democratic leaders , if we don ’ t understand how the public is processing it—because it is uncharted territory , ” said Ian Sams , a Democratic strategist who consults with the Hub Project and Navigator Research .
“ We ’ ve never had 3 million people file for unemployment in a week.
” Recent numbers show the situation is even more unprecedented : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weeks .
Over the last two weeks , the project ’ s poll has captured data uncovering areas where Trump remains out of step with American opinion .
When Trump floated the idea of prioritizing the economy over public health , the tracking poll released last Friday showed that people were more worried about their health and the health of those they know than the economy .
Over the course of its first week , the poll showed Americans ’ view of Trump ’ s overall handling of the crisis was trending downward @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s response has been “ unprepared ” and “ chaotic.
” “ Voters have deep concern about the character flaws of Donald Trump , ” says Ferguson , who , in his work on Hillary Clinton ’ s 2016 campaign saw such opinions shape that election cycle .
“ They identify that he ’ s selfish , that he ’ s dishonest , and that he ’ s chaotic .
But up until now , those flaws have never had a cost .
Up until now people wrote those flaws off as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the fundamental character flaws of Donald Trump are having real consequences .
That more than anything else may be his undoing.
” Multiple Democratic super PACs have begun to run advertisements on Facebook and on television to hammer this message , though campaign finance law prohibits them from coordinating with progressive groups that are subject to fundraising restrictions .
Pacronym , a Democratic super PAC affiliated with the digital firm Acronym , announced on March 17 that it would spend $ 2.5 million through April on Facebook ads to educate voters about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chaos and incompetence have weakened the nation ’ s ability to respond to the coronavirus crisis.
” The effort is focused on battleground states .
Priorities USA Action , another Democratic super PAC , began running television ads last Tuesday in the swing states of Florida , Michigan , Pennsylvania , and Wisconsin .
The ad splices clips of Trump downplaying the crisis with a growing chart showing the rising number of infections in the United States .
The Trump campaign issued a cease and desist letter to TV stations asking them to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by putting it on the air in Arizona as well .
A version with updated numbers went up this week .
On Wednesday , the group spent another $ 1 million on a television ad that contrasts Trump ’ s response with remarks Biden has made about how he would handle the crisis .
It also began running a Facebook ad juxtaposing Trump and Biden .
“ This is the most important issue in the country today , ” says Katie Drapcho , Priorities USA Action ’ s director of research and polling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a defining moment for Trump ’ s presidency and the country .
And our view is that it ’ s absolutely crucial that voters hear the facts about Trump ’ s inaction and misleading statements.
” Last week , Unite the Country PAC , a super PAC started in 2019 to support Biden ’ s campaign , spent $ 1 million to broadcast an ad accusing Trump of failing in this time of crisis , and added another TV spot on the same theme on Tuesday .
“ We have a lot of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” says Drapcho , referring to independent expenditures made by other super PACs , though not naming them .
“ [ We ] are making sure that we ’ re synced up with them as best that we can.
” Protect Our Care , the group behind the Coronavirus War Room , launched new ads across Michigan , Wisconsin , and Pennsylvania this week targeting Trump his unprepared response to the crisis .
As this new deluge of ads hits Trump in key states , America First Action , the main super @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appears to have been caught flat footed .
After Trump aides and allies expressed concerns about the lack of air cover backing the president , America First Action announced it would spend $ 10 million to run television and digital ads attacking Biden in Michigan , Wisconsin , and Pennsylvania , set to begin in mid-April , nearly a month after Democrats began pounding the president .
Messaging is only one piece of what Democratic groups must address to compete effectively through the coronavirus crisis .
Earlier in March , the calls run @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Congress alongside information on public health .
Looking forward , the logistics of campaigning during a pandemic loom .
It ’ s one thing to figure out how to attack Donald Trump , it ’ s another to do so without rallies or door knocking .
It ’ s a problem for the Democratic nominee , but also for organizers behind voter registration and get-out-the-vote programs .
“ You have a lot of progressive Democratic groups both rethinking their plans for events over the spring and summer and beginning to write Plan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ knocking in the fall , ” said a Democratic consultant .
“ No one is implementing Plan B yet .
But lots of people are putting pen to paper , because no one really knows.
” Just as social gatherings have transitioned to FaceTime and Zoom , it seems certain that new forms of political organizing will be digitized .
But for now , working from their homes , many Democrats allies see the political response as urgent .
Scarvalone , the digital strategist , points to Navigator Research ’ s finding that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was unprepared for the crisis .
“ But it isn ’ t yet translating into an equal percentage of people who hate how he ’ s handling it , ” he says .
“ We lose if we don ’ t make the consequences of his actions tangible to everyday people .
”

On March 8, a group of progressive opinion researchers wrapped up three days of polling American public attitudes on the coronavirus. By March 11, the day Navigator Research released those findings, the World Health Organization officially elevated the crisis to pandemic status, the NBA canceled its season, and Tom Hanks and Rita Wilson announced they had COVID-19. That night, Trump gave an Oval Office address that failed to quell fears, setting off a market spiral the following morning.
“I remember feeling like we did a survey that is already out of date in four days,” says Bryan Bennett, the director of polling and analytics at the Hub Project, a progressive group that houses the Navigator Research project. “The only comparable experience, at least in my career, was during the initial part of the financial crisis. But this was just a whole other level.”
“You can’t wait until October to tell the American people about how roundly he screwed this up.”
As most Americans’ routines were upended by the virus, so was the political landscape. Even though the November elections were still eight months away, the coronavirus made it clear to progressive operatives and advocates that they had an immediate role to play, and that they could make a big difference by launching ad campaigns that define Trump on the election’s new and biggest question. Health care and the economy, already front-and-center on voters’ minds, were now even more urgent, and tied to a larger debate, the outcome of which will likely determine who occupies the White House next year: Whether President Donald Trump has failed in anticipating and responding to the crisis.
“The narrative Democrats set now forms the prism through which future news will be interpreted,” says Daniel Scarvalone, a digital strategist at the Democratic digital firm Bully Pulpit Interactive. “Not all Americans are going to watch the news and come to their own conclusions that Donald Trump is doing a bad job. They need their elected officials, state or city leaders, and campaigns to draw the connection between the Trump administration’s actions and the fact that their kids can’t go to school. And that’s the fundamental challenge Democrats have to deal with.”
Outside group spending has long had a major role to play in campaigns, and never more so given current campaign finance laws that allow super PACs and dark money groups to collect and spend unlimited sums. Often they play the bad cop, going negative and attacking the politician they oppose while allowing their preferred candidate to stay positive and appear above the fray. In 2012, the Democratic super PAC Priorities USA Action laid into Mitt Romney with ads portraying him as a heartless capitalist who shut down midwestern factories to turn a profit that defined the republican nominee for the rest of the election and helped sink his campaign.
On March 12, a group dedicated to preserving and expanding the Affordable Care Act, called Protect Our Care, released the first political television ad that mentioned the coronavirus. It targeted Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT) for his opposition to Obamacare. Montanans already worried about health care were now also worried about coronavirus, the ad’s narrator intoned.
But Protect Our Care quickly realized that as a group focused on health care, they had a larger role to play, and broadened its messaging to include the country’s biggest contest by setting up what it calls its “Coronavirus War Room,” a messaging hub meant to hold Trump accountable for the ways he has made the crisis worse. Last week, it began blasting off memos targeting Trump to the press while also acting as a messaging clearinghouse for other groups. Protect Our Care also started hosting calls three times a week with progressive groups to get everyone on the same talking points. Brad Woodhouse, the group’s executive director, said that last week’s Wednesday call hit its limit of 100 participants.
“They’re gonna want to crown him the King of Corona.”
“Our focus at Protect Our Care and the Coronavirus War Room is largely on the accountability piece and with that it’s almost exclusively focused on Trump,” says Woodhouse, a longtime Democratic operative. “You can’t wait until October to tell the American people about how roundly he screwed this up.”
Woodhouse sums up the core messages pushed from the war room: “He screwed it up from the beginning, he hasn’t learned from his mistakes, he’s downplayed the crisis, he doesn’t listen to experts, and that continues to make the crisis worse.” You can see the strategy deployed in the emails his team blasts out, often three a day, which attack Trump on a range of issues, including the administration’s failure to prepare by ramping up testing and the manufacture of medical equipment and protective gear; its elimination of key offices and positions charged with pandemic preparedness; and by elevating Trump’s comments, like downplaying the need for ventilators, that contradict medical experts.
Meanwhile, the Trump campaign has been churning out press releases with the opposite message. On March 19, the campaign sent out a timeline of the “Trump administration’s decisive actions to combat the coronavirus,” including travel advisories regarding China and the dissemination of tests—though extensive reporting has shown the administration critically bungled testing for months, leading to a deficit that is still crippling the response. In multiple emails from the campaign’s “Trump War Room,” the campaign points a finger at the media, labeling it “dishonest.” In the past few days, the campaign has claimed that the Obama administration failed to stockpile medical equipment and blaming then Vice President Biden.
The president’s message has been embraced by conservative outlets, most notably Fox News. Like Trump, the network initially downplayed the crisis, with Sean Hannity, its most-watched host, calling the pandemic a hoax. (Nine days later, he falsely claimed he never had.) But eventually, it adopted a shift in tone more in line with public health warnings about the severity of the pandemic, but that nonetheless accommodated pro-Trump messaging. The network has aggressively pushed the anti-Malaria drugs chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine as a possible treatment for COVID-19 just as Trump has done, without mentioning that there is scant evidence to support their use. In the past few days, Fox hosts and guests have also floated the idea on air and in social media posts that claims of overwhelmed hospitals are a conspiracy, circulating grassroots reports of purportedly empty local hospital parking lots and emergency rooms. The network also gave cover to an idea floated by Trump, but quickly-abandoned, that older Americans would be proud to sacrifice their lives to protect the economy for younger people.
“It’s absolutely crucial that voters hear the facts about Trump’s inaction and misleading statements.”
“One thing has been clear from the last five years of Trump, which is that he has enough right-wing information channels that even when we think he will implode, he rarely does,” says Jesse Ferguson, a Democratic consultant. “They’re gonna want to crown him the King of Corona like Eisenhower was after D-Day no matter what happens.”
To fight pro-Trump narratives, Democratic message warriors are looking for fresh data on how his words and actions are hitting home amid the crisis. For nearly two years, Navigator Research, which is operated by two progressive polling firms, Global Strategy Group and GBAO Research and Strategy in consultation with the Hub Project, has put out monthly polls to help guide progressive messaging on a variety of issues. Two weeks ago, the project decided to scrap the monthly poll and set up a daily tracker to understand people’s attitudes toward the coronavirus and Trump’s handling of the crisis. “We can’t handle this appropriately in real time as a progressive movement, as Democratic leaders, if we don’t understand how the public is processing it—because it is uncharted territory,” said Ian Sams, a Democratic strategist who consults with the Hub Project and Navigator Research. “We’ve never had 3 million people file for unemployment in a week.” Recent numbers show the situation is even more unprecedented: 10 million jobless benefit claims in two weeks.
Over the last two weeks, the project’s poll has captured data uncovering areas where Trump remains out of step with American opinion. When Trump floated the idea of prioritizing the economy over public health, the tracking poll released last Friday showed that people were more worried about their health and the health of those they know than the economy. Over the course of its first week, the poll showed Americans’ view of Trump’s overall handling of the crisis was trending downward. Small majorities last week believed Trump’s response has been “unprepared” and “chaotic.”
“Voters have deep concern about the character flaws of Donald Trump,” says Ferguson, who, in his work on Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign saw such opinions shape that election cycle. “They identify that he’s selfish, that he’s dishonest, and that he’s chaotic. But up until now, those flaws have never had a cost. Up until now people wrote those flaws off as ‘He tweets too much.’ Now, the fundamental character flaws of Donald Trump are having real consequences. That more than anything else may be his undoing.”
Multiple Democratic super PACs have begun to run advertisements on Facebook and on television to hammer this message, though campaign finance law prohibits them from coordinating with progressive groups that are subject to fundraising restrictions. Pacronym, a Democratic super PAC affiliated with the digital firm Acronym, announced on March 17 that it would spend $2.5 million through April on Facebook ads to educate voters about “how the Trump administration’s chaos and incompetence have weakened the nation’s ability to respond to the coronavirus crisis.” The effort is focused on battleground states.
“The fundamental character flaws of Donald Trump are having real consequences.”
Priorities USA Action, another Democratic super PAC, began running television ads last Tuesday in the swing states of Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. The ad splices clips of Trump downplaying the crisis with a growing chart showing the rising number of infections in the United States. The Trump campaign issued a cease and desist letter to TV stations asking them to remove the ad; the group responded by putting it on the air in Arizona as well. A version with updated numbers went up this week. On Wednesday, the group spent another $1 million on a television ad that contrasts Trump’s response with remarks Biden has made about how he would handle the crisis. It also began running a Facebook ad juxtaposing Trump and Biden.
“This is the most important issue in the country today,” says Katie Drapcho, Priorities USA Action’s director of research and polling. “I think it’s a defining moment for Trump’s presidency and the country. And our view is that it’s absolutely crucial that voters hear the facts about Trump’s inaction and misleading statements.”
Last week, Unite the Country PAC, a super PAC started in 2019 to support Biden’s campaign, spent $1 million to broadcast an ad accusing Trump of failing in this time of crisis, and added another TV spot on the same theme on Tuesday. “We have a lot of partnerships with organizations on the IE side,” says Drapcho, referring to independent expenditures made by other super PACs, though not naming them. “[We] are making sure that we’re synced up with them as best that we can.” Protect Our Care, the group behind the Coronavirus War Room, launched new ads across Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania this week targeting Trump his unprepared response to the crisis.
As this new deluge of ads hits Trump in key states, America First Action, the main super PAC set up to defend Trump, appears to have been caught flat footed. After Trump aides and allies expressed concerns about the lack of air cover backing the president, America First Action announced it would spend $10 million to run television and digital ads attacking Biden in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, set to begin in mid-April, nearly a month after Democrats began pounding the president.
Messaging is only one piece of what Democratic groups must address to compete effectively through the coronavirus crisis. Earlier in March, the calls run by Protect Our Care included legislative updates from Congress alongside information on public health. Looking forward, the logistics of campaigning during a pandemic loom. It’s one thing to figure out how to attack Donald Trump, it’s another to do so without rallies or door knocking. It’s a problem for the Democratic nominee, but also for organizers behind voter registration and get-out-the-vote programs.
“You have a lot of progressive Democratic groups both rethinking their plans for events over the spring and summer and beginning to write Plan B for their canvas programs and door knocking in the fall,” said a Democratic consultant. “No one is implementing Plan B yet. But lots of people are putting pen to paper, because no one really knows.” Just as social gatherings have transitioned to FaceTime and Zoom, it seems certain that new forms of political organizing will be digitized.
But for now, working from their homes, many Democrats allies see the political response as urgent. Scarvalone, the digital strategist, points to Navigator Research’s finding that over 60 percent of Americans believe Trump was unprepared for the crisis. “But it isn’t yet translating into an equal percentage of people who hate how he’s handling it,” he says.
“We lose if we don’t make the consequences of his actions tangible to everyday people.”


motherjones--2020-04-03--Small-Dollar Donors Powered the 2020 Race. Then the Pandemic Happened.

The 2020 race was shaping up to be a banner election for small donors .
The major presidential candidates have reported record hauls from contributors kicking in $ 200 or less , harvested by campaigns custom-built to draw as many of those donations as possible .
That was before the coronavirus pandemic sparked a national crisis , abruptly halting the US economy and throwing millions out of work .
The outbreak—along with its many uncertainties—has posed a dilemma for political fundraisers : Can they still count on small donors ?
And how do they appeal to such contributors in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cataclysm ?
Small donors have always been part of the scene , but with the rise of digital technologies—and populist candidates—they have become increasingly important in recent elections , not only as a source of funding but as a sign of voter enthusiasm .
During the 2020 cycle , Bernie Sanders has raised nearly $ 100 million from small donors , more than half of his total .
His Democratic rival , Joe Biden , has been slammed for relying on high-dollar fundraising events , but he too has received a historic level @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of his campaign war chest has come from people giving $ 200 or less .
( Donald Trump , who crushed previous online fundraising records during his 2016 run , has so far raised more than $ 115 million from such contributors during the 2020 race . )
“ The number of people who excited Democratic voters was really leading to an unprecedented amount of investment , ” says Matt Compton , the deputy digital director for Hillary Clinton ’ s 2016 campaign who is now director for advocacy and engagement at Blue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Now , the situation is inevitably going to be different.
” Few Americans donate to political candidates , and even fewer give small amounts : An analysis from campaign finance watchdog OpenSecrets found that slightly more than half of 1 percent of Americans donated more than $ 200 to presidential campaigns in 2016 .
But those who do make small-dollar donations often do so because they feel an emotional connection to the campaign .
“ If you give $ 2,800 , it ’ s typically in exchange for close-up exposure to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who ran digital fundraising for President Obama ’ s 2012 reelection .
“ That ’ s not happening for $ 5 or $ 25—those donors are doing it because they believe in the candidate.
” The Federal Election Commission doesn ’ t require campaigns to turn over detailed information on donors who give less than $ 200—only the lump sum raised from them .
However , in recent years both Democratic and Republican campaigns have begun outsourcing their small-dollar fundraising to groups like ActBlue and WinRed , which do provide more details on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , executive director of Open Secrets , says this data indicates what you might expect : Small donors are among those who are likely to be hardest hit by the economic collapse .
“ We do know that based on their occupation and employers , that small donors are more representative of the middle- and working-class occupations , and the reports are those people are more affected by the economic fallout now and unemployment , ” she says .
Campaigns are already seeing a drop off in small-donor giving , says Shelby Cole @ @ @ @ @ @ @ O ’ Rourke ’ s 2018 senatorial campaign , which raised 45 percent of its $ 79 million from small-dollar contributions .
“ Folks I ’ ve spoken with who are working for digital firms who are raising money for senate races and gubernatorial races have seen the money drop since the news of coronavirus really started taking off , ” she notes .
ActBlue says its House and Senate candidates saw a 13 and 6 percent drop-off , respectively , from the first two weeks in March to the last two , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s economic devastation became clearer .
But a spokesperson for the organization also noted that candidates made fewer donation asks during that period , hitting pause on their pre-pandemic messaging and strategy as they hastily hashed out how to retool their campaigns to suit the current moment .
As the outbreak-inflected economic pain mounts , one thing campaigns are grappling with is how to ask for contributions .
Nearly 10 million Americans filed for unemployment in recent weeks ; millions more are expected to meet a similar fate in the weeks ahead .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ could cause unemployment to hit 32 percent—with 47 million Americans out of work .
Under those conditions , fundraising emails can seem tone deaf and potentially turn supporters off .
Goff says he ’ s noticed several campaigns have removed the “ Donate ” button from recent mass emails .
“ I don ’ t think anyone particularly wants to be made the poster child of opportunistic fundraising off a national crisis , ” Goff says .
Cole likened the pandemic to a national tragedy , such as a mass shooting .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pull the fire alarm and say we ’ ll stop fundraising for a while to give readers space to grieve , ” she says .
Some candidates are still seeking donations—but for pandemic relief , not their campaigns .
Blue State ’ s Compton points to the way the Sanders ’ campaign repurposed its “ Donate ” button in recent weeks to help raise money for COVID-19 causes .
Earlier this week , Biden did the same .
The move signals a campaign ’ s values , Compton explains , which can go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with voters that can pay dividends later on .
When appealing to small donors in this environment , Compton says , it ’ s wise for campaigns to underscore how these contributions are powering their newly retooled campaigns .
Last week , Biden took a swing at this in his first email newsletter ( a new medium the former vice president is now using to connect with voters ) , explaining that “ online donors like you ” are providing the “ funding to pay staff , make videos , do outreach with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to taking down Donald Trump.
” Other campaigns and political organizations are getting more specific .
Sen. Mark Warner ( D-Va. ) , who ’ s up for reelection this year , asked donors to consider giving to his “ digital program , ” which would fund “ online voter registration training , our text and phone banking tools , ” and “ virtual town halls with Mark.
” Supermajority , a women ’ s political advocacy organization , told its supporters about the work its team is now doing remotely , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ organizations who advocate for those on the front line of the pandemic , such as domestic workers and caregivers , who are disproportionately women of color .
Compton notes : “ It takes a whole new measure of radical transparency—unpacking the value of the grassroots donation .
You ’ ve seen folks get in the weeds talking about how their campaigns are changing.
” Cole predicts that some previously successful fundraising tactics , such as promises of matched donations or apocalyptic subject lines urging immediate contributions—the kind of “ churn-and-burn ” fundraising that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that brings donors back to give repeatedly—may not fare well in the current atmosphere .
“ I ’ m really curious to see how those fear-based programs pan out , ” she says .
Political firebrands seem to have a natural advantage when it comes to small-dollar fundraising .
In 2018 , the candidate who had the largest percentage of money coming from small donors ?
Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez .
Second ?
Republican Duncan Hunter .
The list of top small-dollar fundraisers during that election cycle also includes household names from both parties @ @ @ @ @ @ @ D-Minn. ) , Adam Schiff ( D-Calif. ) , Matt Gaetz ( R-Fla. ) , and Jim Jordan ( R-Ohio. )
.
Clearly , certain candidates—and their media-friendly messages—have an edge , but can it be maintained ?
Candidates who message well , especially off voter angst , might still be able to maintain small-donor support .
Open Secrets ’ Krumholz says that if people are troubled or economically suffering , it may encourage them to give if a candidate can convince them it will help .
“ It remains to be seen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may view this as something they might have to dig deep to continue supporting because many may feel their economic future may depend on it , on both sides , ” she says .

The 2020 race was shaping up to be a banner election for small donors. The major presidential candidates have reported record hauls from contributors kicking in $200 or less, harvested by campaigns custom-built to draw as many of those donations as possible. That was before the coronavirus pandemic sparked a national crisis, abruptly halting the US economy and throwing millions out of work. The outbreak—along with its many uncertainties—has posed a dilemma for political fundraisers: Can they still count on small donors? And how do they appeal to such contributors in the midst of a public health and economic cataclysm?
Small donors have always been part of the scene, but with the rise of digital technologies—and populist candidates—they have become increasingly important in recent elections, not only as a source of funding but as a sign of voter enthusiasm. During the 2020 cycle, Bernie Sanders has raised nearly $100 million from small donors, more than half of his total. His Democratic rival, Joe Biden, has been slammed for relying on high-dollar fundraising events, but he too has received a historic level of small-donor support. Nearly 39 percent of his campaign war chest has come from people giving $200 or less. (Donald Trump, who crushed previous online fundraising records during his 2016 run, has so far raised more than $115 million from such contributors during the 2020 race.)
“The number of people who excited Democratic voters was really leading to an unprecedented amount of investment,” says Matt Compton, the deputy digital director for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign who is now director for advocacy and engagement at Blue State, a Democratic digital consulting firm. “Now, the situation is inevitably going to be different.”
Few Americans donate to political candidates, and even fewer give small amounts: An analysis from campaign finance watchdog OpenSecrets found that slightly more than half of 1 percent of Americans donated more than $200 to presidential campaigns in 2016. But those who do make small-dollar donations often do so because they feel an emotional connection to the campaign. “If you give $2,800, it’s typically in exchange for close-up exposure to a candidate,” says Teddy Goff who ran digital fundraising for President Obama’s 2012 reelection. “That’s not happening for $5 or $25—those donors are doing it because they believe in the candidate.”
The Federal Election Commission doesn’t require campaigns to turn over detailed information on donors who give less than $200—only the lump sum raised from them. However, in recent years both Democratic and Republican campaigns have begun outsourcing their small-dollar fundraising to groups like ActBlue and WinRed, which do provide more details on who these donors are. Sheila Krumholz, executive director of Open Secrets, says this data indicates what you might expect: Small donors are among those who are likely to be hardest hit by the economic collapse.
“We do know that based on their occupation and employers, that small donors are more representative of the middle- and working-class occupations, and the reports are those people are more affected by the economic fallout now and unemployment,” she says.
Campaigns are already seeing a drop off in small-donor giving, says Shelby Cole, who led digital fundraising for Beto O’Rourke’s 2018 senatorial campaign, which raised 45 percent of its $79 million from small-dollar contributions. “Folks I’ve spoken with who are working for digital firms who are raising money for senate races and gubernatorial races have seen the money drop since the news of coronavirus really started taking off,” she notes.
ActBlue says its House and Senate candidates saw a 13 and 6 percent drop-off, respectively, from the first two weeks in March to the last two, as the scale of the pandemic’s economic devastation became clearer. But a spokesperson for the organization also noted that candidates made fewer donation asks during that period, hitting pause on their pre-pandemic messaging and strategy as they hastily hashed out how to retool their campaigns to suit the current moment.
As the outbreak-inflected economic pain mounts, one thing campaigns are grappling with is how to ask for contributions. Nearly 10 million Americans filed for unemployment in recent weeks; millions more are expected to meet a similar fate in the weeks ahead. The Federal Reserve estimates that the pandemic could cause unemployment to hit 32 percent—with 47 million Americans out of work. Under those conditions, fundraising emails can seem tone deaf and potentially turn supporters off. Goff says he’s noticed several campaigns have removed the “Donate” button from recent mass emails. “I don’t think anyone particularly wants to be made the poster child of opportunistic fundraising off a national crisis,” Goff says. Cole likened the pandemic to a national tragedy, such as a mass shooting. “That’s a moment where you pull the fire alarm and say we’ll stop fundraising for a while to give readers space to grieve,” she says.
Some candidates are still seeking donations—but for pandemic relief, not their campaigns. Blue State’s Compton points to the way the Sanders’ campaign repurposed its “Donate” button in recent weeks to help raise money for COVID-19 causes. Earlier this week, Biden did the same. The move signals a campaign’s values, Compton explains, which can go a long way in helping forge connections with voters that can pay dividends later on.
When appealing to small donors in this environment, Compton says, it’s wise for campaigns to underscore how these contributions are powering their newly retooled campaigns. Last week, Biden took a swing at this in his first email newsletter (a new medium the former vice president is now using to connect with voters), explaining that “online donors like you” are providing the “funding to pay staff, make videos, do outreach with voters, and plan out our path to taking down Donald Trump.”
Other campaigns and political organizations are getting more specific. Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), who’s up for reelection this year, asked donors to consider giving to his “digital program,” which would fund “online voter registration training, our text and phone banking tools,” and “virtual town halls with Mark.” Supermajority, a women’s political advocacy organization, told its supporters about the work its team is now doing remotely, which now includes amplifying the messages from partner organizations who advocate for those on the front line of the pandemic, such as domestic workers and caregivers, who are disproportionately women of color. Compton notes: “It takes a whole new measure of radical transparency—unpacking the value of the grassroots donation. You’ve seen folks get in the weeds talking about how their campaigns are changing.”
Cole predicts that some previously successful fundraising tactics, such as promises of matched donations or apocalyptic subject lines urging immediate contributions—the kind of “churn-and-burn” fundraising that prioritizes quick action over developing a message that brings donors back to give repeatedly—may not fare well in the current atmosphere. “I’m really curious to see how those fear-based programs pan out,” she says.
Political firebrands seem to have a natural advantage when it comes to small-dollar fundraising. In 2018, the candidate who had the largest percentage of money coming from small donors? Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Second? Republican Duncan Hunter. The list of top small-dollar fundraisers during that election cycle also includes household names from both parties, such as Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), and Jim Jordan (R-Ohio.).
Clearly, certain candidates—and their media-friendly messages—have an edge, but can it be maintained? Candidates who message well, especially off voter angst, might still be able to maintain small-donor support. Open Secrets’ Krumholz says that if people are troubled or economically suffering, it may encourage them to give if a candidate can convince them it will help.
“It remains to be seen whether they stop giving, because they may view this as something they might have to dig deep to continue supporting because many may feel their economic future may depend on it, on both sides,” she says.


motherjones--2020-04-03--The Pentagon Ramps Down Transparency as the Coronavirus Crisis Worsens

While nearly everyone was focused on the accelerating coronavirus outbreak , the Defense Department has spent the last few weeks quietly boosting lobbyists and clamping down on information normally released to the public—including the number of people in the military who have contracted COVID-19 .
On Monday , the Pentagon ordered military installations across the globe to stop revealing new cases of COVID-19 , the disease caused by the coronavirus , among its staff .
Using a familiar excuse , Pentagon spokesperson Jonathan Hoffman cited national security as a reason to conceal these local figures that the Pentagon had been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statement , he said the military would “ understandably protect that information from public release and falling into the hands of our adversaries—as we expect they would do the same.
” Reporters have grown used to this type of behavior from the Pentagon .
Under James Mattis , Trump ’ s first secretary of defense , the Pentagon was harshly criticized for its lack of press briefings and its decision to stop reporting the number of US troops in Afghanistan , Iraq , and Syria .
Mark Esper , the ex–Raytheon lobbyist whom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ permanent replacement , has continued the worrisome trend , often in ways that aren ’ t immediately noticeable .
Around this time of year , lawmakers would normally be in the early stages of drafting next year ’ s defense spending authorization bill , one of the few pieces of legislation Congress must pass each year .
Before the bill is assembled on Capitol Hill , the Pentagon puts together its own legislative proposals , and with Congress focused on stemming the spread of COVID-19 and shoring up the economy , the Pentagon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would benefit defense lobbyists and shield Pentagon spending projections from oversight .
The first one , which Steven Aftergood at the Federation of American Scientists flagged on Monday , asks lawmakers to let the Pentagon classify its future defense spending plans .
This extraordinary move would eliminate an important area of oversight for Pentagon watchers , who have relied on these projected figures since 1989 , when a federal law required the Defense Department to annually produce them .
For journalists , the appeal is obvious : What better way to align the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actual needs than by looking at the department ’ s own predictions ?
Evidently the department does not agree .
In a letter to Congress , officials cited two reasons for concealing these spending plans from the public : Their release could help defense firms get a leg up when competing for government contracts , and the plans “ might inadvertently reveal sensitive information ” and “ cause serious risk to the national defense.
” That ’ s lunacy to anyone who follows the debate over the Pentagon ’ s budget each year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public in relation to the department ’ s spending request .
Information that is especially sensitive , such as projected spending on the intelligence agencies , has usually remained classified , but the Pentagon ’ s unclassified projections are regularly used by government watchdogs to inform the public debate surrounding the massive sums of money the United States spends on national security , which the nonpartisan Project on Government Oversight ( POGO ) estimated to be roughly $ 1.21 trillion last year .
These future projections are vital to informing the public , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Pentagon has partially shielded them in the past .
Barack Obama ’ s first defense budget didn ’ t include detailed projections .
The Trump administration ’ s first budget , from fiscal year 2017 , didn ’ t either , but they at least had a somewhat valid excuse .
Future defense spending projections at the time were in flux as the government prepared the release of a series of defense strategy documents like the Missile Defense Review , Defense News reported at the time .
But all those reports have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pentagon budget requests both contained these figures .
Why is the Pentagon suddenly making this an issue again ?
Gordon Adams , a Clinton White House official who has written extensively about defense spending , told me the request was “ part of a broader story about the extent to which the Pentagon is cutting off information to the Congress and the public.
” A reduction in press briefings and concealment of spending projections aren ’ t the only results of the Pentagon ’ s war on transparency .
Stars and Stripes , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ indispensable reporting on the Pentagon ’ s response to the coronavirus outbreak , might be on the chopping block too .
In the department ’ s budget proposal for fiscal year 2021 , the Pentagon recommended stripping the outlet of $ 15 million in federal funding , which would cut its budget in half .
A different legislative proposal released by the Pentagon in recent weeks would have Congress narrow the definition of lobbying , which would help former Pentagon officials like Esper get lucrative jobs in the defense industry after leaving government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ track how special interests influence defense policy .
POGO ’ s Mandy Smithberger , who first noticed that request and wrote about it on Wednesday , told me the provision would clear the way for more defense officials to take roles in “ strategic consulting ” and “ business development , ” which tend to involve lobbying-related activity .
“ The definition of lobbying was getting closer to common-sense understanding of what lobbying really is , ” she said .
“ This proposal is trying to get it back to a pretty bare-bone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Even Donald Trump has made this exact same point .
In October 2016 , then-candidate Trump released a five-point plan to “ drain the swamp , ” which included a provision “ to expand the definition of lobbyist so we close all the loopholes that former government officials use by labeling themselves consultants and advisors when we all know they are lobbyists.
” Last year ’ s NDAA fight provided another opportunity to strengthen these ethics rules—and House Democrats did add several provisions doing so—but nearly all of those additions failed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of transparency around lobbying is concerning no matter who runs the Pentagon , but especially so with Esper , given his time lobbying for Raytheon .
Under heavy questioning from Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D-Mass . )
, who unveiled a plan to crack down on the Pentagon ’ s revolving door with industry as part of her presidential campaign last year , Esper refused to recuse himself permanently from issues involving Raytheon or commit to other stringent ethics requirements , even the ones adopted by former Deputy Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at Boeing .
Since taking over , Esper has continued Mattis ’ policy of closing the department to the press .
After a series of Iranian missile attacks in January caused dozens of US troops to be diagnosed with traumatic brain injuries , the Pentagon repeatedly delayed and adjusted its reports of how many Americans were affected , raising concerns over how forthright military officials had been when initially reporting the injuries .
Now it appears to be adhering to the same playbook when it comes to reporting COVID-19 infections at military bases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Adams , he said , of “ what the Soviets used to do ” —making it “ harder and harder to track defense actions , plans , and spending .
”

While nearly everyone was focused on the accelerating coronavirus outbreak, the Defense Department has spent the last few weeks quietly boosting lobbyists and clamping down on information normally released to the public—including the number of people in the military who have contracted COVID-19.
On Monday, the Pentagon ordered military installations across the globe to stop revealing new cases of COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus, among its staff. Using a familiar excuse, Pentagon spokesperson Jonathan Hoffman cited national security as a reason to conceal these local figures that the Pentagon had been regularly releasing for days. In a statement, he said the military would “understandably protect that information from public release and falling into the hands of our adversaries—as we expect they would do the same.”
Reporters have grown used to this type of behavior from the Pentagon. Under James Mattis, Trump’s first secretary of defense, the Pentagon was harshly criticized for its lack of press briefings and its decision to stop reporting the number of US troops in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. Mark Esper, the ex–Raytheon lobbyist whom Trump tapped in July as Mattis’ permanent replacement, has continued the worrisome trend, often in ways that aren’t immediately noticeable.
Around this time of year, lawmakers would normally be in the early stages of drafting next year’s defense spending authorization bill, one of the few pieces of legislation Congress must pass each year. Before the bill is assembled on Capitol Hill, the Pentagon puts together its own legislative proposals, and with Congress focused on stemming the spread of COVID-19 and shoring up the economy, the Pentagon included several curious requests this year that would benefit defense lobbyists and shield Pentagon spending projections from oversight.
The first one, which Steven Aftergood at the Federation of American Scientists flagged on Monday, asks lawmakers to let the Pentagon classify its future defense spending plans. This extraordinary move would eliminate an important area of oversight for Pentagon watchers, who have relied on these projected figures since 1989, when a federal law required the Defense Department to annually produce them. For journalists, the appeal is obvious: What better way to align the Pentagon’s spending requests with its actual needs than by looking at the department’s own predictions?
Evidently the department does not agree. In a letter to Congress, officials cited two reasons for concealing these spending plans from the public: Their release could help defense firms get a leg up when competing for government contracts, and the plans “might inadvertently reveal sensitive information” and “cause serious risk to the national defense.” That’s lunacy to anyone who follows the debate over the Pentagon’s budget each year, where reams of information are made public in relation to the department’s spending request. Information that is especially sensitive, such as projected spending on the intelligence agencies, has usually remained classified, but the Pentagon’s unclassified projections are regularly used by government watchdogs to inform the public debate surrounding the massive sums of money the United States spends on national security, which the nonpartisan Project on Government Oversight (POGO) estimated to be roughly $1.21 trillion last year.
These future projections are vital to informing the public, but it’s worth noting that the Pentagon has partially shielded them in the past. Barack Obama’s first defense budget didn’t include detailed projections. The Trump administration’s first budget, from fiscal year 2017, didn’t either, but they at least had a somewhat valid excuse. Future defense spending projections at the time were in flux as the government prepared the release of a series of defense strategy documents like the Missile Defense Review, Defense News reported at the time. But all those reports have since been released and the last two Pentagon budget requests both contained these figures. Why is the Pentagon suddenly making this an issue again?
Gordon Adams, a Clinton White House official who has written extensively about defense spending, told me the request was “part of a broader story about the extent to which the Pentagon is cutting off information to the Congress and the public.” A reduction in press briefings and concealment of spending projections aren’t the only results of the Pentagon’s war on transparency. Stars and Stripes, an independent military publication that has provided indispensable reporting on the Pentagon’s response to the coronavirus outbreak, might be on the chopping block too. In the department’s budget proposal for fiscal year 2021, the Pentagon recommended stripping the outlet of $15 million in federal funding, which would cut its budget in half.
A different legislative proposal released by the Pentagon in recent weeks would have Congress narrow the definition of lobbying, which would help former Pentagon officials like Esper get lucrative jobs in the defense industry after leaving government, and hurts watchdogs who wish to track how special interests influence defense policy. POGO’s Mandy Smithberger, who first noticed that request and wrote about it on Wednesday, told me the provision would clear the way for more defense officials to take roles in “strategic consulting” and “business development,” which tend to involve lobbying-related activity. “The definition of lobbying was getting closer to common-sense understanding of what lobbying really is,” she said. “This proposal is trying to get it back to a pretty bare-bone definition that’s full of loopholes.” Even Donald Trump has made this exact same point. In October 2016, then-candidate Trump released a five-point plan to “drain the swamp,” which included a provision “to expand the definition of lobbyist so we close all the loopholes that former government officials use by labeling themselves consultants and advisors when we all know they are lobbyists.”
Last year’s NDAA fight provided another opportunity to strengthen these ethics rules—and House Democrats did add several provisions doing so—but nearly all of those additions failed to survive the Republican-controlled Senate.
The dearth of transparency around lobbying is concerning no matter who runs the Pentagon, but especially so with Esper, given his time lobbying for Raytheon. Under heavy questioning from Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who unveiled a plan to crack down on the Pentagon’s revolving door with industry as part of her presidential campaign last year, Esper refused to recuse himself permanently from issues involving Raytheon or commit to other stringent ethics requirements, even the ones adopted by former Deputy Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan, who entered government after a lengthy career at Boeing.
Since taking over, Esper has continued Mattis’ policy of closing the department to the press. After a series of Iranian missile attacks in January caused dozens of US troops to be diagnosed with traumatic brain injuries, the Pentagon repeatedly delayed and adjusted its reports of how many Americans were affected, raising concerns over how forthright military officials had been when initially reporting the injuries. Now it appears to be adhering to the same playbook when it comes to reporting COVID-19 infections at military bases and installations.
Moves like this remind Adams, he said, of “what the Soviets used to do”—making it “harder and harder to track defense actions, plans, and spending.”