theintercept--2020-05-12--Remote Voting in Congress Isn't Just a Matter of Public Health — It's Necessary for Democrats to Wie

Remote Voting in Congress Isn't Just a Matter of Public Health — It's Necessary for Democrats to Wield Power

with at least some members of Congress expected to be in Washington and a fourth phase of coronavirus relief legislation on the horizon , the House of Representatives needs to make remote voting a priority .
This is not simply a public safety issue — as has been argued in the New York Times — it ’ s also about being able to wield Democratic power .
Democrats are not , as Vox ’ s Ezra Klein recently asserted , “ governing from the minority.
” Rather , they are failing to govern even the House of Representatives , where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Speaker Nancy Pelosi has dragged her feet on the issue , using Congress ’ s lack of remote voting arrangements to shore up her influence over legislation and effectively shackle progressive members of the Democratic caucus .
As long as it is impossible to meet in person , progressives in Congress are effectively powerless , and House Republicans , though the minority party , have veto power over the chamber ’ s legislation .
Instead of instituting rules allowing for the House to hold committee hearings and vote remotely when the House was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has spent the last two months running the House through “ unanimous consent ” procedures .
This is exactly what it sounds like : A measure can be blocked if any present member offers objection .
By doing so , she ceded substantial control to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy .
The House has historically been ruled by the majority with an iron fist .
Democrats should be setting the terms of the debate by passing bold bills as a negotiating tactic .
Just look at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus relief that passed in March .
Pelosi could and should have had the House approve a simple , popular , progressive relief package that , for example , offered even more generous unemployment benefits , canceled student debt , and paid everybody in the country $ 2,000 per month through the duration of the crisis and then dared the Senate not to pass it .
She didn ’ t because under unanimous consent , anything more liberal than what the Senate passes will be blocked by Republicans .
Indeed , it just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Massie , to block Pelosi ’ s attempt to rubber stamp the CARES Act using unanimous consent .
Massie ’ s call for a recorded vote spurred House leadership to fall back on its next-best option for moving in a hurry under existing rules : Usher a bare majority of members back to Washington to try to achieve a quorum and pass the measure using an unrecorded “ voice vote.
” Since leadership of both parties had signed off on the $ 2.2 trillion corporate giveaway , it didn ’ t matter — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of those voting were Republicans or Democrats .
That we lack a complete accounting of who was present at the vote for such a consequential and controversial piece of legislation is a travesty .
Though his actions frustrated many of his House colleagues and invited the Twitter wrath of Donald Trump , Massie ’ s attempt to force a recorded vote was justified .
Voters have a right to know where their representatives fell on the bill so they can hold them accountable , and the same goes for any major legislation moving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its own roll call of members ’ positions on CARES . )
Until remote lawmaking is in place , progressives ’ hands will be tied .
The more progressive a hypothetical bill is , the more likely it is that Republicans will block passing it by unanimous consent .
If there ’ s a push for a roll call vote , Republicans could kill the quorum — the requirement that a majority of members of the House be present — unless 216 of the 233 serving Democrats are in the chamber .
( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right now , meaning a quorum is lower than it would be were all 435 seats filled . )
Meanwhile , as the crisis continues , the risk increases that representatives will be unable to travel to Washington .
As things stand , Democrats are unable to act as watchdogs .
The Treasury and the Federal Reserve are managing a multitrillion-dollar crisis response under a cloak of darkness .
The CARES Act includes weak oversight provisions , including the institution of an inspector general — whose work Trump intends to frustrate — and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This problem is compounded by Pelosi ’ s appointment of Rep. Donna Shalala to be her designee on this board .
The Florida Democrat has expressed a lack of interest in being aggressive and was found to have violated ethics rules by failing to disclose hundreds of financial transactions she has undertaken during her year or so in office .
Meaningful oversight is more likely to be driven by House committees with relatively intrepid chairs , but only if Pelosi chooses to allow them to function remotely so that they can hold hearings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even issue subpoenas .
The work that can be achieved in such settings can be profound .
When the likely magnitude of the impact of the coronavirus was just becoming apparent in March , Rep. Katie Porter , D-Calif. , gained notoriety for extracting a pledge from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Robert R. Redfield that coronavirus testing costs would be covered even for the uninsured .
If committees are not meeting , then this sort of exchange can not take place .
According to research by Data For Progress , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voting and only 16 percent said the rules should not be changed ( the rest were unsure ) .
The public clearly wants Congress to keep working during the pandemic , and many legislators agree .
In March , dozens of representatives signed various letters advocating for changes to House rules to allow remote meetings .
“ We need to provide a mechanism through which Congress can act during times of crisis without having to assemble in one place , ” one letter with over 50 signatures insisted .
The Constitution , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to “ determine the Rules of its Proceedings.
” The founders may not have explicitly endorsed virtual voting , but they also didn ’ t prohibit it .
As recently as a few weeks ago , Pelosi dismissed her colleague ’ s sensible calls for reform .
“ We ’ re not there yet , and we ’ re not going to be there no matter how many letters somebody sends in — with all the respect in the world for that , ” she said .
Under pressure from her peers and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like Demand Progress ( of which David Segal , a co-author of this piece , is executive director ) , the speaker has since begun to change her tune , but because of her delay , she must navigate an increasingly complex situation .
Fixing the rules requires the House to pass an amendment .
If Pelosi tries to do this through unanimous consent , a Republican will block .
This means she likely needs a majority vote , with a quorum present .
That could happen this week , when the House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relief legislation — though many members are elderly , have underlying conditions , or are in self-quarantine , thus making it difficult to secure a quorum that Democrats control .
Activists and citizens pushing for a more robust response to the current crisis must take note .
If we want better , more humane policies , congressional decision-making procedures must be fixed first .
We need a relief package that bails out regular people , puts stringent conditions on any public funds distributed to the corporate sector , and protects our electoral process @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote by mail in November .
Progressive Democrats have leverage to fight for a just recovery , if only Pelosi will allow them to use it .
The pandemic has shown old rules need not apply .
Even the stodgy Supreme Court , which doesn ’ t allow video recordings or real-time audio broadcasts of its proceedings , has begun to hear cases by teleconference .
Congress recently made a change to allow members to introduce or co-sponsor legislation by email .
Now , they must allow for remote voting and committee work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to use Zoom overnight , Washington officials surely can too .

Photo: Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images
This week, with at least some members of Congress expected to be in Washington and a fourth phase of coronavirus relief legislation on the horizon, the House of Representatives needs to make remote voting a priority. This is not simply a public safety issue — as has been argued in the New York Times — it’s also about being able to wield Democratic power. Democrats are not, as Vox’s Ezra Klein recently asserted, “governing from the minority.” Rather, they are failing to govern even the House of Representatives, where they hold an ample majority.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has dragged her feet on the issue, using Congress’s lack of remote voting arrangements to shore up her influence over legislation and effectively shackle progressive members of the Democratic caucus. As long as it is impossible to meet in person, progressives in Congress are effectively powerless, and House Republicans, though the minority party, have veto power over the chamber’s legislation.
Read Our Complete Coverage The Coronavirus Crisis
Instead of instituting rules allowing for the House to hold committee hearings and vote remotely when the House was last in session in March, Pelosi has spent the last two months running the House through “unanimous consent” procedures. This is exactly what it sounds like: A measure can be blocked if any present member offers objection. By doing so, she ceded substantial control to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy.
The House has historically been ruled by the majority with an iron fist. Democrats should be setting the terms of the debate by passing bold bills as a negotiating tactic. Just look at the CARES Act — the third phase of coronavirus relief that passed in March. Pelosi could and should have had the House approve a simple, popular, progressive relief package that, for example, offered even more generous unemployment benefits, canceled student debt, and paid everybody in the country $2,000 per month through the duration of the crisis and then dared the Senate not to pass it. She didn’t because under unanimous consent, anything more liberal than what the Senate passes will be blocked by Republicans.
Photo: Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images
Indeed, it just took one Republican, Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie, to block Pelosi’s attempt to rubber stamp the CARES Act using unanimous consent. Massie’s call for a recorded vote spurred House leadership to fall back on its next-best option for moving in a hurry under existing rules: Usher a bare majority of members back to Washington to try to achieve a quorum and pass the measure using an unrecorded “voice vote.” Since leadership of both parties had signed off on the $2.2 trillion corporate giveaway, it didn’t matter — and remains unclear — whether a majority of those voting were Republicans or Democrats.
That we lack a complete accounting of who was present at the vote for such a consequential and controversial piece of legislation is a travesty. Though his actions frustrated many of his House colleagues and invited the Twitter wrath of Donald Trump, Massie’s attempt to force a recorded vote was justified. Voters have a right to know where their representatives fell on the bill so they can hold them accountable, and the same goes for any major legislation moving forward. (The Intercept has conducted its own roll call of members’ positions on CARES.)
Until remote lawmaking is in place, progressives’ hands will be tied. The more progressive a hypothetical bill is, the more likely it is that Republicans will block passing it by unanimous consent. If there’s a push for a roll call vote, Republicans could kill the quorum — the requirement that a majority of members of the House be present — unless 216 of the 233 serving Democrats are in the chamber. (There are five vacancies in the House right now, meaning a quorum is lower than it would be were all 435 seats filled.) Meanwhile, as the crisis continues, the risk increases that representatives will be unable to travel to Washington.
As things stand, Democrats are unable to act as watchdogs. The Treasury and the Federal Reserve are managing a multitrillion-dollar crisis response under a cloak of darkness. The CARES Act includes weak oversight provisions, including the institution of an inspector general — whose work Trump intends to frustrate — and an oversight board without subpoena power. This problem is compounded by Pelosi’s appointment of Rep. Donna Shalala to be her designee on this board. The Florida Democrat has expressed a lack of interest in being aggressive and was found to have violated ethics rules by failing to disclose hundreds of financial transactions she has undertaken during her year or so in office. Meaningful oversight is more likely to be driven by House committees with relatively intrepid chairs, but only if Pelosi chooses to allow them to function remotely so that they can hold hearings, demand access to information, and even issue subpoenas.
The work that can be achieved in such settings can be profound. When the likely magnitude of the impact of the coronavirus was just becoming apparent in March, Rep. Katie Porter, D-Calif., gained notoriety for extracting a pledge from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Robert R. Redfield that coronavirus testing costs would be covered even for the uninsured. If committees are not meeting, then this sort of exchange cannot take place.
According to research by Data For Progress, 67 percent of people polled supported remote voting and only 16 percent said the rules should not be changed (the rest were unsure). The public clearly wants Congress to keep working during the pandemic, and many legislators agree. In March, dozens of representatives signed various letters advocating for changes to House rules to allow remote meetings. “We need to provide a mechanism through which Congress can act during times of crisis without having to assemble in one place,” one letter with over 50 signatures insisted. The Constitution, the authors pointed out, permits each House to “determine the Rules of its Proceedings.” The founders may not have explicitly endorsed virtual voting, but they also didn’t prohibit it.
Share Your Coronavirus Story Click here to learn about contacting a reporter securely, or email us at coronavirus@theintercept.com
As recently as a few weeks ago, Pelosi dismissed her colleague’s sensible calls for reform. “We’re not there yet, and we’re not going to be there no matter how many letters somebody sends in — with all the respect in the world for that,” she said. Under pressure from her peers and the public, spearheaded by advocacy groups like Demand Progress (of which David Segal, a co-author of this piece, is executive director), the speaker has since begun to change her tune, but because of her delay, she must navigate an increasingly complex situation. Fixing the rules requires the House to pass an amendment. If Pelosi tries to do this through unanimous consent, a Republican will block. This means she likely needs a majority vote, with a quorum present. That could happen this week, when the House comes back to consider Phase 4 coronavirus relief legislation — though many members are elderly, have underlying conditions, or are in self-quarantine, thus making it difficult to secure a quorum that Democrats control.
Activists and citizens pushing for a more robust response to the current crisis must take note. If we want better, more humane policies, congressional decision-making procedures must be fixed first.
We need a relief package that bails out regular people, puts stringent conditions on any public funds distributed to the corporate sector, and protects our electoral process by guaranteeing that all citizens can safely vote by mail in November. Progressive Democrats have leverage to fight for a just recovery, if only Pelosi will allow them to use it.
The pandemic has shown old rules need not apply. Even the stodgy Supreme Court, which doesn’t allow video recordings or real-time audio broadcasts of its proceedings, has begun to hear cases by teleconference. Congress recently made a change to allow members to introduce or co-sponsor legislation by email. Now, they must allow for remote voting and committee work. If millions of schoolchildren can learn to use Zoom overnight, Washington officials surely can too.


theintercept--2020-05-12--David Perdue Got Sweetheart Deal That Grew North of $6 Million After Election to the Senate

after his election to the U.S. Senate , was granted a lucrative compensation package by a financial technology firm that would grow to be worth more than $ 6 million , according to a review of congressional financial disclosures and Securities and Exchange Commission filings .
After his tenure as CEO of Dollar General , Perdue , a Georgia Republican , was appointed to the board of directors of the financial marketing firm Cardlytics in 2010 .
For his service on the board , which lasted until the end of 2014 , he was granted a total of 300,000 stock @ @ @ @ @ @ @ SEC .
Perdue nearly lost out on the value of the options by winning the Senate seat in November 2014 , as options typically expire not long after a board member or employee leaves the company , and the company had not yet gone public , meaning Perdue couldn ’ t exercise his options .
Perdue couldn ’ t remain as a compensated director on the board as a sitting senator without creating illegal conflicts of interest .
But the company altered the terms of the compensation package so that Perdue could still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Senate .
According to SEC filings , the firm extended the period he was able to exercise the options all the way out to 2020 and 2022 .
The company went public in 2018 , with time still left on the clock for Perdue to exercise his options .
The options were priced generously .
Perdue was able to buy his two chunks of shares for $ 2.36 and $ 4.44 .
In February , the stock topped out above $ 98 .
Perdue ’ s stock trading has become a political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ apparent recognition of that reality , on Friday he told the local business press he had moved his investments into broad-based stock funds and would stop trading individual stocks .
He would continue to hold on , he said , to three stocks that he earned through his service on corporate boards , one of those being Cardlytics .
Perdue also served , from 2011 to 2014 , on the board of Graphic Packaging Holding Company , for which he received both stock and direct compensation .
SEC files say he was awarded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , along with $ 90,000 worth of shares annually , adding up to more than half a million in compensation .
He made more than $ 1.5 million serving on the board of Alliant Energy .
He left both boards in 2014 ahead of being sworn into the Senate .
Cardlytics , part of the burgeoning financial technology industry , or fintech , mines and analyzes consumer and banking data , using individual financial transaction history to help companies optimize and personalize marketing efforts in a way that significantly implicates regulations around privacy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to stay within the law while extracting unusually valuable personal data is a prime selling point .
Perdue serves on the powerful Senate Banking Committee and has worked to roll back regulations that govern firms like Cardlytics .
He also serves on the Securities , Insurance , and Investment Subcommittee , which more directly overlaps with firms like the Atlanta-based Cardlytics , and has sponsored legislation that would be to the firm ’ s benefit .
“ Overregulation has sucked the very life out of our free-enterprise system , ” Perdue explains on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back confusing and often contradictory regulations , and undoing the most onerous parts of Dodd-Frank , we ’ ve begun freeing up trapped capital and started to put it to work in our economy .
These efforts are making banks work for average Americans and generating much-needed economic growth to help solve our national debt crisis.
” According to filings with the SEC , Cardlytics “ accelerated Mr. Perdue ’ s options ” — which means that he was fully granted the ones that had yet to vest — “ and extended the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s option grants to October 12 , 2020 and January 25 , 2022.
” Having extra time to exercise the options gives the stock more opportunity to rise and Perdue more time to decide whether to exercise them , thus dramatically reducing his risk .
According to his Senate financial disclosure reports and SEC filings , Perdue was granted the option to purchase the stock at two separate prices , known as strike prices : 59 cents and $ 1.11 , which ultimately cost roughly $ 300,000 .
When the value of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the options are said to be “ in the money.
” Kirk Somers , chief legal officer at Cardlytics , told The Intercept that most of the shares had vested by December 2014 , so accelerating the remaining 4,167 shares yielded him little in additional benefit .
“ I was personally there at the time and the board unanimously agreed with the support of outside counsel to pull forward the options which had not yet vested , ” he said in a statement .
“ These amounted to less than 2 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and they were pulled forward by less than a month .
This was standard practice for a private company , and something we had also done for others.
” Indeed , the genuine value came in the extension of the time he could exercise the shares.
“ At the time , the options had no value since the company wouldn ’ t end up going public for another 4 years , ” said Dani Cushion , Cardlytics ’ s chief marketing officer .
“ Senator Perdue was a very involved and valuable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CEO of a retail company .
In 2014 , the board unanimously agreed to give Senator Perdue the grace period to make use of the options he had earned .
This is not unique to Senator Perdue and in other circumstances with employees leaving Cardlytics , the board has also granted the same opportunity .
What he earned before he went to the Senate was his only compensation for his four years of service , and this type of acceleration and extension is common practice.
” Brian Foley , an executive compensation consultant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Foley & Company , said that allowing Perdue to leave with all of his options in 2014 was an understandable decision .
Allowing him to stretch the time he had to exercise the options out to 2020 and 2022 , he added , was quite generous .
“ To do it as someone is departing the board is very unusual and I ’ ve only been doing this 45 years .
It ’ s very unusual , ” Foley said .
“ Extending six or eight years is long , ” said Andy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ You ’ re overriding a policy that ’ s in place .
Either you ’ re questioning the policy or you ’ re doing something special.
” There isn ’ t much data on how common such arrangements are , said Restaino , because private companies aren ’ t required to report them unless they go public .
“ He was treated very generously when he was elected , ” Foley added.
“ Extending the exercisability turned out to be a significant benefit , and you could have certainly thought that at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you knew the option was worth spit , or half of spit.
” On Wednesday , the New York Times exposed an arrangement whereby Kelly Loeffler , Georgia ’ s junior senator who is also running to retain her seat this year , was the beneficiary of a windfall from her husband ’ s company , International Exchange , which owns the New York Stock Exchange .
Loeffler ’ s payout was valued at more than $ 9 million .
“ It looks , feels and has the sweet aroma of a pure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Times of Loeffler ’ s arrangement .
Foley said he smelled something similar in Perdue ’ s deal .
“ This one has that same sickly aroma that the junior senator ’ s deal had .
They let him keep the play and let him keep until October of this year and January of 2022 .
That ’ s a very long time to keep the play , ” he said .
In February 2018 , the company went public , and its value began rapidly rising .
Perdue , according to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on July 18 , 2018 , listing the asset as valued between $ 1 million and $ 5 million .
On January 23 of this year , the stock closed at just under $ 87 per share , meaning that Perdue ’ s shares — which had gone down from 300,000 shares to 75,000 following a 4-to-1 stock split , according to SEC records — were worth more than $ 6.5 million .
The shares had cost him roughly $ 300,000 , according to SEC documents and an analysis of disclosure records .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Perdue , that same day , sold between $ 1 million and $ 5 million worth of Cardlytics stock , according to Senate disclosures .
The sale was well timed .
On March 3 , five weeks later , with the stock trading at $ 86 , the company announced that CEO Grimes was stepping down and the stock nosedived , dropping to $ 54 by the next day , and bottoming out under $ 30 on March 18 .
On that day , Perdue bought back , at a steep discount , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sold , buying at least $ 200,000 , and as much as $ 500,000 worth , according to Senate disclosures , putting his holdings close to his original grant .
The stock has climbed since and now hovers at around $ 50 .
Most of the executives , including Grimes , involved in that restructuring had helped Perdue win his race in 2014 , contributing $ 24,500 , according to campaign finance reports .
Grimes , who is now executive chairman , also gave $ 5,600 , the maximum allowable contribution , to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ It was a well-timed , sudden exit after years of slumbering , ” said Foley .
“ Like Andrew Cuomo says , I ’ m just giving you the facts , you can draw your own conclusions.
” In September 2019 , Grimes and co-founder , president , and COO Lynne Laube , also a significant donor to both of Perdue ’ s Senate campaigns , were honored with the E. Milton Bevington Distinguished Entrepreneur Award .
Perdue introduced the pair from the stage .
In 2016 , Perdue toured Cardlytics ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ photo .
The stock-trading scandal was kicked off when ProPublica first reported that Sen. Richard Burr , R-N.C. , chair of the Intelligence Committee , sold the bulk of his stocks after a private briefing on the severity of the coronavirus pandemic in early February .
Burr has said that he made the trades based on his reading of media accounts of the spread of the virus in China .
On Wednesday , ProPublica reported that Burr ’ s brother-in-law made a series of stock sales the same day , February 13 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Burr co-authored an op-ed assuring that “ the United States today is better prepared than ever before to face emerging public health threats , like the coronavirus.
” Loeffler and Perdue , who were hit by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution for similarly selling large chunks of stocks in February and March , have both claimed that they were not personally responsible for the sales of stocks , saying that financial advisers made the trades .
But neither Loeffler nor Perdue held their investments in a blind trust at the time .
On Friday evening @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Perdue said a “ majority ” of trades were made by outside advisers .
“ Since 2005 , we have retained outside , independent financial advisers like Goldman Sachs who themselves , or through outside fund managers they identify , handle the majority of our stock investments , ” Perdue is quoted telling the outlet .
That Perdue was now saying only that his advisers handled “ the majority ” of trades suggested that he and/or his wife also handled some of them .
Perdue is familiar with stock trading : he was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ firm , The Aquila Group , according to SEC files .
But a Perdue spokesperson told The Intercept that “ outside , independent financial advisors continue to be the only individuals making transactions , ” saying that Perdue had meant that Goldman Sachs makes a majority of the trades , and other brokerages make the rest .
In March , as first reported by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution , Perdue dumped his holdings in casino shares ahead of the pandemic-driven market crash , while investing instead in the drugmaker Pfizer and the firm DuPont @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the pandemic response .
Toward the end of February , Perdue sold upward of $ 165,000 worth of Caesars Entertainment Corporation , a casino company .
At the same time , he bought up to $ 260,000 worth of stock in Pfizer and $ 105,000 in DuPont , at the upper end of the ranges listed in the filings .
Casinos have imploded in the midst of the pandemic .
Perdue also purchased shares of Delta , an airline based in Georgia , and Disney .
The Delta purchase is a strong mitigating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been a foolish stock to buy if the buyer expected the economy to close down .
The Disney purchase is a mixed bag , as the company ’ s theme parks have closed and revenue from its theatrical releases will be ravaged , but its streaming and other content distribution businesses are well-positioned to profit from quarantined viewers .
The Delta trade also underscores the ethical perils of lawmakers trading stocks , as Congress debates a bailout of the airline industry .
It is illegal for members of Congress to trade on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of their duties , but it is legal for members of Congress to own and trade stocks , even as they legislate in ways that will impact their holdings , such as the potential airline bailout .
Perdue , as part of his sell-off and move toward non-controversial , broad-based investments , no longer owns the Delta shares .
The purpose of offering directors stock options that vest over a period of time , meanwhile , is to retain talent .
But letting Perdue leave Cardlytics with his options and then extending the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ length — typically , board members have 90 days to exercise after departing the board — does nothing for shareholders .
“ What were the Cardlytics shareholders getting for the five , six years extended ?
” Foley said .

David Perdue, after his election to the U.S. Senate, was granted a lucrative compensation package by a financial technology firm that would grow to be worth more than $6 million, according to a review of congressional financial disclosures and Securities and Exchange Commission filings. After his tenure as CEO of Dollar General, Perdue, a Georgia Republican, was appointed to the board of directors of the financial marketing firm Cardlytics in 2010. For his service on the board, which lasted until the end of 2014, he was granted a total of 300,000 stock options, according to filings with the SEC.
Perdue nearly lost out on the value of the options by winning the Senate seat in November 2014, as options typically expire not long after a board member or employee leaves the company, and the company had not yet gone public, meaning Perdue couldn’t exercise his options. Perdue couldn’t remain as a compensated director on the board as a sitting senator without creating illegal conflicts of interest. But the company altered the terms of the compensation package so that Perdue could still benefit even after he was elected to the Senate. According to SEC filings, the firm extended the period he was able to exercise the options all the way out to 2020 and 2022. The company went public in 2018, with time still left on the clock for Perdue to exercise his options.
The options were priced generously. Perdue was able to buy his two chunks of shares for $2.36 and $4.44. In February, the stock topped out above $98.
Perdue’s stock trading has become a political liability in an election year. In apparent recognition of that reality, on Friday he told the local business press he had moved his investments into broad-based stock funds and would stop trading individual stocks. He would continue to hold on, he said, to three stocks that he earned through his service on corporate boards, one of those being Cardlytics.
Perdue also served, from 2011 to 2014, on the board of Graphic Packaging Holding Company, for which he received both stock and direct compensation. SEC files say he was awarded roughly $70,000 in direct compensation annually, along with $90,000 worth of shares annually, adding up to more than half a million in compensation. He made more than $1.5 million serving on the board of Alliant Energy. He left both boards in 2014 ahead of being sworn into the Senate.
Cardlytics, part of the burgeoning financial technology industry, or fintech, mines and analyzes consumer and banking data, using individual financial transaction history to help companies optimize and personalize marketing efforts in a way that significantly implicates regulations around privacy. The company’s professed ability to stay within the law while extracting unusually valuable personal data is a prime selling point.
Perdue serves on the powerful Senate Banking Committee and has worked to roll back regulations that govern firms like Cardlytics. He also serves on the Securities, Insurance, and Investment Subcommittee, which more directly overlaps with firms like the Atlanta-based Cardlytics, and has sponsored legislation that would be to the firm’s benefit. “Overregulation has sucked the very life out of our free-enterprise system,” Perdue explains on his Senate website. “By rolling back confusing and often contradictory regulations, and undoing the most onerous parts of Dodd-Frank, we’ve begun freeing up trapped capital and started to put it to work in our economy. These efforts are making banks work for average Americans and generating much-needed economic growth to help solve our national debt crisis.”
According to filings with the SEC, Cardlytics “accelerated Mr. Perdue’s options” — which means that he was fully granted the ones that had yet to vest — “and extended the post-termination exercise periods applicable to Mr. Perdue’s option grants to October 12, 2020 and January 25, 2022.” Having extra time to exercise the options gives the stock more opportunity to rise and Perdue more time to decide whether to exercise them, thus dramatically reducing his risk. According to his Senate financial disclosure reports and SEC filings, Perdue was granted the option to purchase the stock at two separate prices, known as strike prices: 59 cents and $1.11, which ultimately cost roughly $300,000. When the value of the company rises above the strike price, the options are said to be “in the money.”
Kirk Somers, chief legal officer at Cardlytics, told The Intercept that most of the shares had vested by December 2014, so accelerating the remaining 4,167 shares yielded him little in additional benefit. “I was personally there at the time and the board unanimously agreed with the support of outside counsel to pull forward the options which had not yet vested,” he said in a statement. “These amounted to less than 2 percent of the Senator’s total options, and they were pulled forward by less than a month. This was standard practice for a private company, and something we had also done for others.”
Indeed, the genuine value came in the extension of the time he could exercise the shares.“At the time, the options had no value since the company wouldn’t end up going public for another 4 years,” said Dani Cushion, Cardlytics’s chief marketing officer. “Senator Perdue was a very involved and valuable board member, particularly as a past CEO of a retail company. In 2014, the board unanimously agreed to give Senator Perdue the grace period to make use of the options he had earned. This is not unique to Senator Perdue and in other circumstances with employees leaving Cardlytics, the board has also granted the same opportunity. What he earned before he went to the Senate was his only compensation for his four years of service, and this type of acceleration and extension is common practice.”
Brian Foley, an executive compensation consultant and managing director of the firm Brian Foley & Company, said that allowing Perdue to leave with all of his options in 2014 was an understandable decision. Allowing him to stretch the time he had to exercise the options out to 2020 and 2022, he added, was quite generous.
“To do it as someone is departing the board is very unusual and I’ve only been doing this 45 years. It’s very unusual,” Foley said.
“Extending six or eight years is long,” said Andy Restaino, an executive compensation consultant. “You’re overriding a policy that’s in place. Either you’re questioning the policy or you’re doing something special.” There isn’t much data on how common such arrangements are, said Restaino, because private companies aren’t required to report them unless they go public.
“He was treated very generously when he was elected,” Foley added.“Extending the exercisability turned out to be a significant benefit, and you could have certainly thought that at the time, because at the time you knew the option was worth spit, or half of spit.”
On Wednesday, the New York Times exposed an arrangement whereby Kelly Loeffler, Georgia’s junior senator who is also running to retain her seat this year, was the beneficiary of a windfall from her husband’s company, International Exchange, which owns the New York Stock Exchange. Loeffler’s payout was valued at more than $9 million. “It looks, feels and has the sweet aroma of a pure windfall,” Foley is quoted telling the Times of Loeffler’s arrangement.
Foley said he smelled something similar in Perdue’s deal. “This one has that same sickly aroma that the junior senator’s deal had. They let him keep the play and let him keep until October of this year and January of 2022. That’s a very long time to keep the play,” he said.
In February 2018, the company went public, and its value began rapidly rising. Perdue, according to Senate disclosures, finally exercised his options on July 18, 2018, listing the asset as valued between $1 million and $5 million.
Having extra time to exercise the options gives the stock more opportunity to rise and Perdue more time to decide whether to exercise them, thus dramatically reducing his risk.
On January 23 of this year, the stock closed at just under $87 per share, meaning that Perdue’s shares — which had gone down from 300,000 shares to 75,000 following a 4-to-1 stock split, according to SEC records — were worth more than $6.5 million. The shares had cost him roughly $300,000, according to SEC documents and an analysis of disclosure records.
Ahead of the impending market crash, Perdue, that same day, sold between $1 million and $5 million worth of Cardlytics stock, according to Senate disclosures.
The sale was well timed. On March 3, five weeks later, with the stock trading at $86, the company announced that CEO Grimes was stepping down and the stock nosedived, dropping to $54 by the next day, and bottoming out under $30 on March 18. On that day, Perdue bought back, at a steep discount, the bulk of the shares he had sold, buying at least $200,000, and as much as $500,000 worth, according to Senate disclosures, putting his holdings close to his original grant. The stock has climbed since and now hovers at around $50.
Most of the executives, including Grimes, involved in that restructuring had helped Perdue win his race in 2014, contributing $24,500, according to campaign finance reports. Grimes, who is now executive chairman, also gave $5,600, the maximum allowable contribution, to Perdue’s campaign in 2020. “It was a well-timed, sudden exit after years of slumbering,” said Foley. “Like Andrew Cuomo says, I’m just giving you the facts, you can draw your own conclusions.”
In September 2019, Grimes and co-founder, president, and COO Lynne Laube, also a significant donor to both of Perdue’s Senate campaigns, were honored with the E. Milton Bevington Distinguished Entrepreneur Award. Perdue introduced the pair from the stage. In 2016, Perdue toured Cardlytics’s Georgia headquarters, posing for a photo.
Last February, Perdue introduced legislation to undercut the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s funding stream. That same month, a year after Cardlytics went public, he introduced a bill to loosen regulations on financial tech startups. Georgia, he said at the time, has “become a hotbed for fintech, biotech, and other emerging technology companies.” The bill was introduced with Democrats Kyrsten Sinema and Gary Peters and Republican Thom Tillis. “This bipartisan action removes one of the most onerous requirements off of these technology startups and will allow Georgia’s industries to compete in public markets and on the global stage,” Perdue said. Cushions said that Cardlytics, which does not employ a lobbying firm in Washington, has never lobbied Perdue.
The stock-trading scandal was kicked off when ProPublica first reported that Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., chair of the Intelligence Committee, sold the bulk of his stocks after a private briefing on the severity of the coronavirus pandemic in early February. Burr has said that he made the trades based on his reading of media accounts of the spread of the virus in China. On Wednesday, ProPublica reported that Burr’s brother-in-law made a series of stock sales the same day, February 13, as Burr. On February 7, Burr co-authored an op-ed assuring that “the United States today is better prepared than ever before to face emerging public health threats, like the coronavirus.”
Loeffler and Perdue, who were hit by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution for similarly selling large chunks of stocks in February and March, have both claimed that they were not personally responsible for the sales of stocks, saying that financial advisers made the trades. But neither Loeffler nor Perdue held their investments in a blind trust at the time.
On Friday evening, the Atlanta Business Chronicle reported that Perdue said a “majority” of trades were made by outside advisers. “Since 2005, we have retained outside, independent financial advisers like Goldman Sachs who themselves, or through outside fund managers they identify, handle the majority of our stock investments,” Perdue is quoted telling the outlet.
That Perdue was now saying only that his advisers handled “the majority” of trades suggested that he and/or his wife also handled some of them. Perdue is familiar with stock trading: he was previously the CEO of a private investment firm, The Aquila Group, according to SEC files. But a Perdue spokesperson told The Intercept that “outside, independent financial advisors continue to be the only individuals making transactions,” saying that Perdue had meant that Goldman Sachs makes a majority of the trades, and other brokerages make the rest.
In March, as first reported by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Perdue dumped his holdings in casino shares ahead of the pandemic-driven market crash, while investing instead in the drugmaker Pfizer and the firm DuPont, which makes medical supplies important to the pandemic response.
Toward the end of February, Perdue sold upward of $165,000 worth of Caesars Entertainment Corporation, a casino company. At the same time, he bought up to $260,000 worth of stock in Pfizer and $105,000 in DuPont, at the upper end of the ranges listed in the filings. Casinos have imploded in the midst of the pandemic.
Perdue also purchased shares of Delta, an airline based in Georgia, and Disney. The Delta purchase is a strong mitigating trade for Perdue, as it would have been a foolish stock to buy if the buyer expected the economy to close down. The Disney purchase is a mixed bag, as the company’s theme parks have closed and revenue from its theatrical releases will be ravaged, but its streaming and other content distribution businesses are well-positioned to profit from quarantined viewers.
The Delta trade also underscores the ethical perils of lawmakers trading stocks, as Congress debates a bailout of the airline industry. It is illegal for members of Congress to trade on nonpublic information they learn in the course of their duties, but it is legal for members of Congress to own and trade stocks, even as they legislate in ways that will impact their holdings, such as the potential airline bailout. Perdue, as part of his sell-off and move toward non-controversial, broad-based investments, no longer owns the Delta shares.
The purpose of offering directors stock options that vest over a period of time, meanwhile, is to retain talent. But letting Perdue leave Cardlytics with his options and then extending the period to exercise by such an unusual length — typically, board members have 90 days to exercise after departing the board — does nothing for shareholders.
“What were the Cardlytics shareholders getting for the five, six years extended?” Foley said.


theintercept--2020-05-12--The Pandemic Brings Out the Authoritarian and the Libertarian in Us All. Can We Meet in the Middle?

and astute U.S.-watcher Fintan O ’ Toole recently and astute U.S.-watcher Fintan O ’ Toole recently wrote that Donald Trump ’ s two claims , “ I have total authority ” and “ I don ’ t take responsibility at all , ” reveal a man “ incapable of coherence.
” I think they just reveal a megalomaniac incapable of accountability .
In fact , Trump has deployed his declared unitary power to foment chaos , which has fortified that unitary power .
# FireFauci .
Liberate Michigan !
Divide and conquer : Trump takes a classic move one lurch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mutineer .
Incoherence is the point .
One reason Trump has been invincible so far is that he not only embodies but also exploits a powerful American ambivalence : on one hand , the punitive authoritarian instinct that supports long prison sentences and a strong military ; on the other , the leave-me-alone libertarianism embodied in the Bill of Rights , a defense of individuals from the power of the state .
This ambivalence is not a red-blue split .
It is internal to both .
On the right , laissez-faire economics chafe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ imperialism .
On the left , the Stalinists are still at war with the anarchists , the nanny-statists with the hippies , and a taste for utopian direct democracy , as in the Occupy movement , strains against a hunger for big government .
The coronavirus crisis has brought this ambivalence to the fore .
Mistrust of the government emanates from both right and left .
In Lansing , Michigan , a heavily astroturfed “ movement ” of wing-nuts with automatic weapons storms the state Capitol in defense of the liberty to get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ others .
In Los Angeles , the grassroots Stop LAPD Spying Coalition — a network of organizers in low-income communities of color seeking to dismantle “ government-sanctioned spying and intelligence gathering , in all its multiple forms ” — airs a webinar series to strategize resistance to expansion of the police state in the pandemic .
Such resistance can border on the self-destructive .
There ’ s lively discussion among evangelicals about the pandemic as a left-wing Zionist hoax or , perhaps , a welcome early sign of the end times .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their pastors and sicken their church choirs ?
Those clamoring to be freed from house arrest seem unconcerned with the motives of their would-be liberators .
“ The damages of keeping the economy closed as it is could be worse than losing a few more people , ” mused Paychex founder and chair Tom Golisano , whose estimated net worth is $ 3.9 billion .
“ You have to weigh the pros and cons ” — a luxury Paychex ’ s $ 11-an-hour data entry clerks will not have when the day comes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ LAPD webinar , a presenter discusses the “ National Coronavirus Response : A Road Map to Reopening , ” published by the libertarian pro-business think tank American Enterprise Institute .
The report stresses new technologies of testing and contact tracing , “ real-time ” data analysis , and the buildup of “ comprehensive COVID-19 surveillance systems.
” Representing communities subject to constant policing based on “ predictive ” algorithms of crime , facial recognition software , and police files of serology , fingerprints , and other personal biodata , Stop LAPD is wary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t need to police or surveil our way out of ” the pandemic , coordinator Hamid Khan tells me .
The group isn ’ t telling people not to get tested , but “ our perspective is data abolitionist ” — cool it with the stats , just send the resources — even if the data substantiates the racial and economic inequities that leave black and brown bodies vulnerable or the disproportionate rates of Covid-19 infection and death in these communities .
“ Our folks in Skid Row don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them what ’ s wrong with the conditions on the ground , ” Kahn says .
Asked if it ’ s valuable for other people to know in order to act , he , like the coalition , is agnostic .
Different resisters are more or less justified in their fears .
The webinar ’ s title , “ Power Not Paranoia , ” evinces the tension for marginalized communities between survival in the moment and self-preservation in the long run .
But “ paranoid ” might not be the wrong word for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arrest at the Michigan state Capitol action .
Were the armed intruders black or brown , it ’ s doubtful the police would have been so accommodating of their rights to free speech and assembly .
Trump has nearly achieved realization of Ronald Reagan ’ s adage that “ the nine most terrifying words ” are “ I ’ m from the government , and I ’ m here to help.
’ ” Bereft of any benign function of an administrative state and suspect of a sinister police state , many citizens see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their own and take their chances .
Rather than fight for government action , DIYers are sewing , 3-D printing , or raising money on GoFundMe for masks for hospital workers .
Others are turning to violent “ self-defense ” against perceived government overreach .
In Michigan , a security guard was fatally shot after allegedly ejecting a woman related to the shooter from a Family Dollar store for not wearing a mask .
Meanwhile , some of us are privately , anxiously contending with conflicting impulses rising from deep psyche : to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
To touch the hand of the checkout worker , not exactly accidentally , for a moment of contact ?
As I witness violations of our new social codes , and break them occasionally myself , my political-personal faith in a mutually supportive , mutually protective community begins to wobble .
This isn ’ t working !
Where ’ s the police state when we need it ?
As if to teach me a lesson , a Lower East Side officer tackles , punches , and kneels on the head of a man @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In Philadelphia , cops are videotaped dragging a passenger from a bus for not wearing a mask .
It is easy to write off social distancing opponents or anti-vaxxers as selfish Luddites , and those sticking with the program as rational promoters of public health .
But either would be hasty .
Because , as University of Michigan historian Alexandra Minna Stern points out , the definitions of “ public ” and “ health ” are debatable .
For example , the 1905 Supreme Court case that upheld the constitutionality of compulsory vaccination @ @ @ @ @ @ @ precedent in 1927 to rule that the state of Virginia did not violate the due process rights of an institutionalized “ feeble-minded woman ” by performing an involuntary tubal ligation on her , to promote , as the law read , the “ health of the patient and the welfare of society.
” In other words , eugenics was constitutional .
Vaccination rational , eugenics criminal ?
In both cases , the justices found that individual liberty — implying bodily autonomy — could be subordinated to the collective “ good.
” To get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ between too much and not enough government .
Somewhere in the middle lies solidarity : the recognition that an injury to one is an injury to all , and the less injured have a responsibility to the more injured .
Fortunately , disasters inspire this spirit .
But solidarity is not just banging pots and putting rainbows in our windows to thank the essential workers .
Solidarity implies government policies of wealth redistribution and adequate public services and support to those who need it .
With Republicans taking advantage of the pandemic to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for corporate plunder , America may never have needed its instinctive skepticism of government more .
But we also must not let up demanding that the state promote the public good , even as we continue to debate the meaning of that term .

Illustration: Kelsey Wroten for The Intercept
The Irish columnist
and astute U.S.-watcher Fintan O’Toole recently wrote that Donald Trump’s two claims, “I have total authority” and “I don’t take responsibility at all,” reveal a man “incapable of coherence.” I think they just reveal a megalomaniac incapable of accountability. In fact, Trump has deployed his declared unitary power to foment chaos, which has fortified that unitary power. #FireFauci. Liberate Michigan! Divide and conquer: Trump takes a classic move one lurch forward, to play both captain and mutineer. Incoherence is the point.
One reason Trump has been invincible so far is that he not only embodies but also exploits a powerful American ambivalence: on one hand, the punitive authoritarian instinct that supports long prison sentences and a strong military; on the other, the leave-me-alone libertarianism embodied in the Bill of Rights, a defense of individuals from the power of the state.
This ambivalence is not a red-blue split. It is internal to both. On the right, laissez-faire economics chafe against Christian cultural intolerance, isolationism against imperialism. On the left, the Stalinists are still at war with the anarchists, the nanny-statists with the hippies, and a taste for utopian direct democracy, as in the Occupy movement, strains against a hunger for big government.
The coronavirus crisis has brought this ambivalence to the fore. Mistrust of the government emanates from both right and left. In Lansing, Michigan, a heavily astroturfed “movement” of wing-nuts with automatic weapons storms the state Capitol in defense of the liberty to get haircuts, get infected, and infect others. In Los Angeles, the grassroots Stop LAPD Spying Coalition — a network of organizers in low-income communities of color seeking to dismantle “government-sanctioned spying and intelligence gathering, in all its multiple forms” — airs a webinar series to strategize resistance to expansion of the police state in the pandemic.
Such resistance can border on the self-destructive. There’s lively discussion among evangelicals about the pandemic as a left-wing Zionist hoax or, perhaps, a welcome early sign of the end times. But did God mean to decimate denominations of their pastors and sicken their church choirs? Those clamoring to be freed from house arrest seem unconcerned with the motives of their would-be liberators. “The damages of keeping the economy closed as it is could be worse than losing a few more people,” mused Paychex founder and chair Tom Golisano, whose estimated net worth is $3.9 billion. “You have to weigh the pros and cons” — a luxury Paychex’s $11-an-hour data entry clerks will not have when the day comes to clock in.
On a Stop LAPD webinar, a presenter discusses the “National Coronavirus Response: A Road Map to Reopening,” published by the libertarian pro-business think tank American Enterprise Institute. The report stresses new technologies of testing and contact tracing, “real-time” data analysis, and the buildup of “comprehensive COVID-19 surveillance systems.” Representing communities subject to constant policing based on “predictive” algorithms of crime, facial recognition software, and police files of serology, fingerprints, and other personal biodata, Stop LAPD is wary of the whole approach. “We don’t need to police or surveil our way out of” the pandemic, coordinator Hamid Khan tells me. The group isn’t telling people not to get tested, but “our perspective is data abolitionist” — cool it with the stats, just send the resources — even if the data substantiates the racial and economic inequities that leave black and brown bodies vulnerable or the disproportionate rates of Covid-19 infection and death in these communities. “Our folks in Skid Row don’t need someone from the outside to tell them what’s wrong with the conditions on the ground,” Kahn says. Asked if it’s valuable for other people to know in order to act, he, like the coalition, is agnostic.
Different resisters are more or less justified in their fears. The webinar’s title, “Power Not Paranoia,” evinces the tension for marginalized communities between survival in the moment and self-preservation in the long run. But “paranoid” might not be the wrong word for the anti-lockdown crowd. There was one arrest at the Michigan state Capitol action. Were the armed intruders black or brown, it’s doubtful the police would have been so accommodating of their rights to free speech and assembly.
Read Our Complete Coverage The Coronavirus Crisis
Trump has nearly achieved realization of Ronald Reagan’s adage that “the nine most terrifying words” are “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.’” Bereft of any benign function of an administrative state and suspect of a sinister police state, many citizens see no option but to take care of their own and take their chances. Rather than fight for government action, DIYers are sewing, 3-D printing, or raising money on GoFundMe for masks for hospital workers. Others are turning to violent “self-defense” against perceived government overreach. In Michigan, a security guard was fatally shot after allegedly ejecting a woman related to the shooter from a Family Dollar store for not wearing a mask.
Meanwhile, some of us are privately, anxiously contending with conflicting impulses rising from deep psyche: to chastise the neighbors for standing too close? To touch the hand of the checkout worker, not exactly accidentally, for a moment of contact? As I witness violations of our new social codes, and break them occasionally myself, my political-personal faith in a mutually supportive, mutually protective community begins to wobble. This isn’t working! Where’s the police state when we need it? As if to teach me a lesson, a Lower East Side officer tackles, punches, and kneels on the head of a man for an alleged social distancing infraction. In Philadelphia, cops are videotaped dragging a passenger from a bus for not wearing a mask.
It is easy to write off social distancing opponents or anti-vaxxers as selfish Luddites, and those sticking with the program as rational promoters of public health. But either would be hasty. Because, as University of Michigan historian Alexandra Minna Stern points out, the definitions of “public” and “health” are debatable. For example, the 1905 Supreme Court case that upheld the constitutionality of compulsory vaccination during a smallpox epidemic was reprised as precedent in 1927 to rule that the state of Virginia did not violate the due process rights of an institutionalized “feeble-minded woman” by performing an involuntary tubal ligation on her, to promote, as the law read, the “health of the patient and the welfare of society.” In other words, eugenics was constitutional. Vaccination rational, eugenics criminal? In both cases, the justices found that individual liberty — implying bodily autonomy — could be subordinated to the collective “good.”
To get through the pandemic, we need something between too much and not enough government. Somewhere in the middle lies solidarity: the recognition that an injury to one is an injury to all, and the less injured have a responsibility to the more injured. Fortunately, disasters inspire this spirit. But solidarity is not just banging pots and putting rainbows in our windows to thank the essential workers. Solidarity implies government policies of wealth redistribution and adequate public services and support to those who need it. With Republicans taking advantage of the pandemic to expand authoritarian power and liberate the economy for corporate plunder, America may never have needed its instinctive skepticism of government more. But we also must not let up demanding that the state promote the public good, even as we continue to debate the meaning of that term.


theintercept--2020-05-12--Two Female Reporters Refused to Let Trump Bully Them Into Silence, So He Ran Away

When an actual press conference threatened to break out in the Rose Garden on Monday , as two White House correspondents refused to let Donald Trump silence them , and a third declined his request to change the subject by asking a new question , the president abruptly turned and walked away .
It was a sudden ending to what Trump had clearly expected to be a largely self-promotional event — during which he told Americans , on the day that the coronavirus death toll passed 80,000 , “ We have met the moment , and we have prevailed.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was a rare moment of cooperation among members of the White House press corps who , for once , refused to play Trump ’ s game of ending an exchange with a reporter whenever he is under pressure by calling on someone else .
That dodge usually works because correspondents from rival networks are so eager for their turn in the spotlight that they let the president decide who speaks and when .
But when his signature move suddenly failed on Monday , as the CBS News correspondent Weijia Jiang pressed him on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her , and Kaitlan Collins of CNN and Yamiche Alcindor of PBS both refused to bail him out , Trump simply called time on the proceedings and fled .
The president ’ s meltdown came after Jiang put him on the spot by asking him why he was boasting about the United States having now performed more coronavirus tests than any other nation .
“ Why does that matter ?
” she asked .
“ Why is this global competition to you if every day Americans are still losing their lives and we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ day ?
” The president responded by lashing out at the Chinese-American reporter from West Virginia , telling her , nonsensically , that she should “ ask China ” her question about his obsession with testing statistics .
Trump then tried to end the exchange by calling on Collins for a new question , but the CNN reporter waited for her colleague from CBS to follow up .
Jiang — who was the target of a racist joke by a White House official in March — pressed Trump on the thinly veiled racism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ why are you saying that to me , specifically , that I should ask China ?
” she asked .
After Trump replied by claiming that he would say the same “ to anybody that asks a nasty question like that , ” he pointed at Collins and said , “ Please go ahead.
” Collins , however , again waited for Jiang to finish , which she did , by saying , “ That ’ s not a nasty question .
Why does it matter ?
” Trump then tried to punish @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Alcindor to ask the next question instead .
When Collins objected , “ but you called on me , ” Trump said , “ I did and you didn ’ t respond , and now I ’ m calling on the young lady in the back.
” Alcindor wrote later on Twitter that instead of jumping in , she gestured at Collins to proceed .
When she tried to , Trump threw up his hands in frustration , declared the event over and turned on his heels .

When an actual press conference threatened to break out in the Rose Garden on Monday, as two White House correspondents refused to let Donald Trump silence them, and a third declined his request to change the subject by asking a new question, the president abruptly turned and walked away.
The final minute of Trump's news conference this evening pic.twitter.com/m6oGh1q9VF — Axios (@axios) May 11, 2020
It was a sudden ending to what Trump had clearly expected to be a largely self-promotional event — during which he told Americans, on the day that the coronavirus death toll passed 80,000, “We have met the moment, and we have prevailed.”
What prompted the president’s retreat was a rare moment of cooperation among members of the White House press corps who, for once, refused to play Trump’s game of ending an exchange with a reporter whenever he is under pressure by calling on someone else. That dodge usually works because correspondents from rival networks are so eager for their turn in the spotlight that they let the president decide who speaks and when.
But when his signature move suddenly failed on Monday, as the CBS News correspondent Weijia Jiang pressed him on the racist undertone of his comment to her, and Kaitlan Collins of CNN and Yamiche Alcindor of PBS both refused to bail him out, Trump simply called time on the proceedings and fled.
The president’s meltdown came after Jiang put him on the spot by asking him why he was boasting about the United States having now performed more coronavirus tests than any other nation. “Why does that matter?” she asked. “Why is this global competition to you if every day Americans are still losing their lives and we’re still seeing more cases every day?”
The president responded by lashing out at the Chinese-American reporter from West Virginia, telling her, nonsensically, that she should “ask China” her question about his obsession with testing statistics. Trump then tried to end the exchange by calling on Collins for a new question, as the White House staff cut off the mic so that Jiang’s response could not be heard, but the CNN reporter waited for her colleague from CBS to get a chance to follow up.
Jiang — who was the target of a racist joke by a White House official in March — pressed Trump on the thinly veiled racism of his reply. “Sir, why are you saying that to me, specifically, that I should ask China?” she asked, after the mic had been reactivated. After Trump replied by claiming that he would say the same “to anybody that asks a nasty question like that,” he pointed at Collins and said, “Please go ahead.”
Collins, however, again waited for Jiang to finish, which she did, by saying, “That’s not a nasty question. Why does it matter?”
Trump then tried to punish Collins by skipping her and calling on Alcindor to ask the next question instead. When Collins objected, “but you called on me,” Trump said, “I did and you didn’t respond, and now I’m calling on the young lady in the back.”
Alcindor wrote later on Twitter that instead of jumping in, she gestured at Collins to proceed. When she tried to, after saying, “I just wanted to let my colleague finish,” Trump threw up his hands in frustration, declared the event over and turned on his heels.
Likely aware of how petty he looked, Trump later cast the collegial behavior of the three correspondents as evidence of some sort of plot against him, tweeting video of the exchange with the comment: “The Lamestream Media is truly out of control. Look how they work (conspire!) together.”
The president’s fit did little to inspire confidence in his handling of the crisis but it reminded many critics of how particularly irked Trump seems to be by tough questions from women. “Pretty pathetic,” Sen. Bernie Sanders tweeted in response to video of the meltdown. “Mr. Trump is a coward who tears down others to make himself feel powerful.”
Trump’s inability to answer Jiang’s question was also revealing because it cut to the heart of his constant attempts to distract Americans from his obvious inability to handle the crisis with a blizzard of irrelevant or misleading statistics.
That’s why, during every one of his recent meetings with governors in the Oval Office, the leaders of those states have been forced to sit in front of placards detailing exactly how many pieces of medical equipment the federal government has provided to them since the start of the crisis.
Photo: Doug Mills/The New York Times/Bloomberg via Getty Images
Photo: Doug Mills/The New York Times/Bloomberg via Getty Images
Missing from those tallies has been any indication of how many of those items the governors requested or how many of their residents have become infected or died in that same period from the pandemic virus the president claimed in February would simply “disappear.”
During Monday’s Rose Garden event, Trump also returned to perhaps his most brazen lie about the Covid-19 death toll — the entirely false claim he has been making since mid-April that the United States is, with Germany, one of the two countries with the least number of deaths per capita from the disease. As I reported last weekend, this is not even close to true.
Trump repeats the massive lie that the U.S. and Germany "are the two best in deaths per 100,000" from Covid-19. As I reported the U.S. mortality rate is 132nd; Germany's rate is so much lower that 50,000 Americans would still be alive if we matched it https://t.co/Ch1hqm3RRN pic.twitter.com/ZfikBopIC5 — Robert Mackey (@RobertMackey) May 11, 2020
When Trump claimed in his scripted opening remarks on Monday that “Germany and the United States are leading the world in lives saved per 100,000,” and later ad-libbed that “Germany and the United States are the two best in deaths per 100,000,” he appeared to be referring to the latest statistics on deaths in only the eight countries with the most confirmed cases of Covid-19. In that ranking, if all of the other countries on Earth are ignored, it is true that the U.S. mortality rate is the seventh-worst and the German one the eight-worst.
Photo: Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center
But that is very different from “leading the world in lives saved.” The fact is that while six Western European countries do have more deaths per capita from Covid-19 than the U.S., there are more than 130 countries with lower mortality rates than America, including Germany, which is far lower. As of May 11, according to statistics updated daily by the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center, the U.S. had 24.66 deaths from Covid-19 per 100,000 citizens, compared to just 9.24 per 100,000 citizens in Germany.
What this means is that if the federal government in Washington had been as successful at keeping its citizens alive as the one in Berlin, the death toll in the U.S. would not be, as it is today, 82,246, but 30,817 instead.
In other words, Trump is engaged in a kind of statistical sleight-of-hand, one that seems designed to distract attention from the fact that more than 50,000 Americans who have died of Covid-19 would still be alive today had he managed the crisis as well as Angela Merkel.
Updated: Tuesday, May 12, 5:47 p.m. PDT
This article was updated with the latest Covid-19 mortality rates for the 10 countries with the most confirmed cases as of May 11.


theintercept--2020-05-12--HEROES Act Delivers a Win to the Health Insurance Industry

, the new coronavirus relief bill introduced by House Democrats on Tuesday , includes protections for employer-sponsored insurance plans , which the health care industry has been lobbying Congress on for weeks .
The proposed legislation includes subsidies for continued coverage for furloughed workers and people using COBRA , a continuing health coverage plan for those who have lost work , even if they don ’ t pay their premiums .
The bill also creates avenues for premium assistance for certain categories of people who want to pay those premiums anyway and would open a special insurance enrollment period a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enacted into law .
It also provides nine months of premium payments to health insurance plan administrators who don ’ t receive them during the ongoing pandemic .
The push to protect insurance premiums comes as some health care companies , like UnitedHealth , Humana , and Cigna , have reported profits during the pandemic amid record-high unemployment levels and have boasted that they don ’ t expect to take a financial hit .
In late April , dozens of industry groups — including the influential , conservative Chamber of Commerce — sent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ direct subsidies for COBRA , expanding uses for health savings accounts , and increasing eligibility to access health insurance marketplaces .
A couple of weeks earlier , the nations ’ second-largest health insurance lobby , America ’ s Health Insurance Plans , joined a congressional call with members of the conservative Democratic Blue Dog Caucus to ask for protections for employer coverage .
According to two sources familiar with the April 13 call , AHIP ’ s CEO discussed the importance of protecting employer-sponsored plans .
One person on the call , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ authorized to speak publicly about the conversation , said AHIP ’ s push for targeted relief to employers who pay premiums to insurance companies was puzzling , given that insurance companies have seen recent profits .
“ AHIP discussed from the perspective of protecting employer-sponsored coverage , which would be the health plan .
That ’ s what they sell , ” the person said .
“ So they would basically be saying to their customer , you get some protection as long as the money goes to pay for the premiums.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ everybody is trying to get something for their industry , right ?
And the microphone was open to health plans , ” they added .
“ It was a curious stance being taken.
” While fully subsidizing COBRA has the popular appeal of simplicity , it is inefficient , unfair , poorly targeted , could end up hurting some people , and does not even work toward closing the gaps in the nation ’ s health care system .
It is inequitable because much more help will go to people who previously made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a good option for people laid off from high-paying jobs who more often had high-quality insurance .
Meanwhile , workers who had no coverage or only low-quality employer insurance with very high cost sharing would more likely be better off on Medicaid than COBRA , given that new , enhanced unemployment benefits don ’ t count against eligibility for Medicaid .
Medicaid has almost no cost sharing while a former employer ’ s coverage may have large deductibles and out-of-pocket limits .
These lower-income hospitality sector employers are the ones most hurt by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government fully subsidizes COBRA , this gives insurers a reason to mislead their recently laid-off customers to keep them on the rolls .
Additionally , the HEROES Act does not provide assistance to individuals who have purchased their own insurance — rather than being provided coverage by an employer — and often have the most difficulties affording care .
Congressional Democrats are setting themselves up for policy and political failure by adopting the industry groups ’ request to improve COBRA only temporarily for the next year .
The provision in the HEROES Act @ @ @ @ @ @ @ setting the United States up for a health care crisis at the start of President Donald Trump ’ s second term or a Joe Biden administration .
On a purely political level , there is no reason to believe that the crisis will be over by November or that Senate Republicans are going to have any interest in passing more stimulus measures if Trump loses .
It would be political malpractice for Democrats to pursue any solution that is not permanent or at least based on automatic stabilizers that Trump can ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the coronavirus pandemic has merely brought to the fore existing inequality in the U.S. health care system .
Tying health insurance to employment and therefore , ensuring a loss of insurance during times of unemployment , was a huge problem well before the crisis ; the only real difference now is that it is happening to so many people at once .
The fact that Congress is even exploring subsidizing COBRA is an admission that neither the existing COBRA nor the Affordable Care Act were properly designed to address what happens to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suddenly lose their job .
Reached for comment , AHIP Senior Vice President of Communications Kristine Grow said the group couldn ’ t speak to any meetings with members of Congress , adding that its focus on legislative proposals was solely in the interest of employers and employees keeping health coverage .
“ It ’ s for employers to keep their employees covered , and for people to get covered if they don ’ t have it today .
Including incentives for employers to keep their employees on their health coverage , support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and a special enrollment period to get people covered , ” she said .
Asked about the pattern of insurance companies posting significant profits during the crisis , Grow said it was too soon to know the financial impact of Covid-19 on the health care industry .
“ We didn ’ t have much of an opportunity to see an impact from COVID-19 in the first quarter because it was so early in the crisis — and we were not able to track COVID-19 through the health care system until codes went into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Blue Dog Coalition , which is chaired by Reps. Anthony Brindisi of New York , Lou Correa of California , Stephanie Murphy of Florida , and Tom O ’ Halleran of Arizona , did not respond to requests for comment .
health care comes as insurers have warned that premium costs could rise as a result of the ongoing pandemic , while reporting that they beat earnings expectations last quarter and are expecting to see their membership rise as millions of people lose their employer-sponsored coverage .
Coronavirus relief funding measures passed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a number of health care-related provisions .
Those include aid to providers , Covid-19 vaccine and testing coverage ( although neither are readily available ) , funding for telehealth , expanding the use for health savings and flexible spending accounts for some over-the-counter medicines , and a temporary moratorium on Medicare sequestration .
In their April 28 letter to congressional leadership , industry groups asked that lawmakers “ prioritize maintaining private health benefits for individuals and families and to increase coverage options for those who are already uninsured.
” Among their specific asks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a program intended for temporary use when people lose work or health benefits .
A government subsidy of COBRA to ensure that people had commercial coverage , in addition to protecting premiums , was also discussed on the AHIP-Blue Dogs call .
Given the high cost of employer coverage , COBRA is rarely a viable option for many people .
The COBRA expansion wouldn ’ t cover deductibles and does not apply to people who previously didn ’ t have employer coverage but lost their jobs .
The 2009 stimulus , passed in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ included subsidies for COBRA coverage .
The idea has gained traction among private insurers as they lose customers at an alarming rate , and especially among hospitals because they often charge people with employer insurance more than twice as much as those with Medicare or Medicaid .
That ’ s why , for the federal government , fully subsidizing COBRA on a per person basis will actually be one of the most expensive ways for the federal government to keep coverage numbers up and also one of the worst ways to target it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to expand COBRA subsidies as a major achievement .
Unions , health insurance companies , and Democrats alike have unified behind the idea of an insurance bailout .
The alliance is unlikely , but it makes sense for the moment as access to health care is a top priority for most people right now .
But progressive advocates who pushed Medicare for All into a national conversation say an insurance industry bailout can ’ t solve the national health care crisis , which predated the current pandemic and will last long after things @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sanders wrote an op-ed on April 28 criticizing Democrats ’ push to subsidize COBRA .
“ Subsidizing COBRA , as they have suggested , would be both expensive and ineffective : Not only would health insurance corporations make massive profits off the plan—profits that come at the cost of the American taxpayer—but it would still leave tens of millions uninsured or underinsured , ” he wrote .
“ Expanding COBRA during the pandemic would do nothing to cover those who already lacked insurance , ” he added , noting that the program ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relief for low-income workers who still have to pay high deductibles .
Wendell Potter , former Cigna vice president turned Medicare for All advocate , has been warning online against congressional aid to the insurance industry at a time when major companies are reaping profits .
“ Beware of my old industry — health insurers — trying to get a taxpayer handout , ” he tweeted .
“ We should spend that money on providing healthcare to needy Americans , not subsidizing an inefficient & undeserving industry .
”

The HEROES Act , the new coronavirus relief bill introduced by House Democrats on Tuesday, includes protections for employer-sponsored insurance plans, which the health care industry has been lobbying Congress on for weeks. The proposed legislation includes subsidies for continued coverage for furloughed workers and people using COBRA, a continuing health coverage plan for those who have lost work, even if they don’t pay their premiums. The bill also creates avenues for premium assistance for certain categories of people who want to pay those premiums anyway and would open a special insurance enrollment period a week from the date it’s enacted into law. It also provides nine months of premium payments to health insurance plan administrators who don’t receive them during the ongoing pandemic.
The push to protect insurance premiums comes as some health care companies, like UnitedHealth, Humana, and Cigna, have reported profits during the pandemic amid record-high unemployment levels and have boasted that they don’t expect to take a financial hit.
In late April, dozens of industry groups — including the influential, conservative Chamber of Commerce — sent a letter to congressional leadership asking for direct subsidies for COBRA, expanding uses for health savings accounts, and increasing eligibility to access health insurance marketplaces.
A couple of weeks earlier, the nations’ second-largest health insurance lobby, America’s Health Insurance Plans, joined a congressional call with members of the conservative Democratic Blue Dog Caucus to ask for protections for employer coverage. According to two sources familiar with the April 13 call, AHIP’s CEO discussed the importance of protecting employer-sponsored plans. One person on the call, who works for an insurer and was not authorized to speak publicly about the conversation, said AHIP’s push for targeted relief to employers who pay premiums to insurance companies was puzzling, given that insurance companies have seen recent profits.
“AHIP discussed from the perspective of protecting employer-sponsored coverage, which would be the health plan. That’s what they sell,” the person said. “So they would basically be saying to their customer, you get some protection as long as the money goes to pay for the premiums.”
“It’s a time where everybody is trying to get something for their industry, right? And the microphone was open to health plans,” they added. “It was a curious stance being taken.”
Congressional Democrats are setting themselves up for policy and political failure by adopting the industry groups’ request to improve COBRA only temporarily for the next year .
While fully subsidizing COBRA has the popular appeal of simplicity, it is inefficient, unfair, poorly targeted, could end up hurting some people, and does not even work toward closing the gaps in the nation’s health care system. It is inequitable because much more help will go to people who previously made higher incomes.
Subsidizing COBRA may be a good option for people laid off from high-paying jobs who more often had high-quality insurance. Meanwhile, workers who had no coverage or only low-quality employer insurance with very high cost sharing would more likely be better off on Medicaid than COBRA, given that new, enhanced unemployment benefits don’t count against eligibility for Medicaid. Medicaid has almost no cost sharing while a former employer’s coverage may have large deductibles and out-of-pocket limits. These lower-income hospitality sector employers are the ones most hurt by layoffs right now. Yet if the government fully subsidizes COBRA, this gives insurers a reason to mislead their recently laid-off customers to keep them on the rolls. Additionally, the HEROES Act does not provide assistance to individuals who have purchased their own insurance — rather than being provided coverage by an employer — and often have the most difficulties affording care.
Congressional Democrats are setting themselves up for policy and political failure by adopting the industry groups’ request to improve COBRA only temporarily for the next year. The provision in the HEROES Act runs through January 31, 2021, setting the United States up for a health care crisis at the start of President Donald Trump’s second term or a Joe Biden administration. On a purely political level, there is no reason to believe that the crisis will be over by November or that Senate Republicans are going to have any interest in passing more stimulus measures if Trump loses.
It would be political malpractice for Democrats to pursue any solution that is not permanent or at least based on automatic stabilizers that Trump can’t undermine. On a policy level, the coronavirus pandemic has merely brought to the fore existing inequality in the U.S. health care system. Tying health insurance to employment and therefore, ensuring a loss of insurance during times of unemployment, was a huge problem well before the crisis; the only real difference now is that it is happening to so many people at once. The fact that Congress is even exploring subsidizing COBRA is an admission that neither the existing COBRA nor the Affordable Care Act were properly designed to address what happens to a person’s health care when they suddenly lose their job.
Read Our Complete Coverage The Coronavirus Crisis
Reached for comment, AHIP Senior Vice President of Communications Kristine Grow said the group couldn’t speak to any meetings with members of Congress, adding that its focus on legislative proposals was solely in the interest of employers and employees keeping health coverage. “It’s for employers to keep their employees covered, and for people to get covered if they don’t have it today. Including incentives for employers to keep their employees on their health coverage, support for employees to afford COBRA coverage, and a special enrollment period to get people covered,” she said.
Asked about the pattern of insurance companies posting significant profits during the crisis, Grow said it was too soon to know the financial impact of Covid-19 on the health care industry. “We didn’t have much of an opportunity to see an impact from COVID-19 in the first quarter because it was so early in the crisis — and we were not able to track COVID-19 through the health care system until codes went into effect at the end of March.”
The Blue Dog Coalition, which is chaired by Reps. Anthony Brindisi of New York, Lou Correa of California, Stephanie Murphy of Florida, and Tom O’Halleran of Arizona, did not respond to requests for comment.
The lobbying around health care comes as insurers have warned that premium costs could rise as a result of the ongoing pandemic, while reporting that they beat earnings expectations last quarter and are expecting to see their membership rise as millions of people lose their employer-sponsored coverage.
Coronavirus relief funding measures passed over the last two months have included a number of health care-related provisions. Those include aid to providers, Covid-19 vaccine and testing coverage (although neither are readily available), funding for telehealth, expanding the use for health savings and flexible spending accounts for some over-the-counter medicines, and a temporary moratorium on Medicare sequestration.
In their April 28 letter to congressional leadership, industry groups asked that lawmakers “prioritize maintaining private health benefits for individuals and families and to increase coverage options for those who are already uninsured.”
Among their specific asks was a direct subsidy for COBRA, a program intended for temporary use when people lose work or health benefits. A government subsidy of COBRA to ensure that people had commercial coverage, in addition to protecting premiums, was also discussed on the AHIP-Blue Dogs call. Given the high cost of employer coverage, COBRA is rarely a viable option for many people. The COBRA expansion wouldn’t cover deductibles and does not apply to people who previously didn’t have employer coverage but lost their jobs. The 2009 stimulus, passed in response to the Wall Street collapse, included subsidies for COBRA coverage.
The idea has gained traction among private insurers as they lose customers at an alarming rate, and especially among hospitals because they often charge people with employer insurance more than twice as much as those with Medicare or Medicaid. That’s why, for the federal government, fully subsidizing COBRA on a per person basis will actually be one of the most expensive ways for the federal government to keep coverage numbers up and also one of the worst ways to target it.
House Democrats last month celebrated plans to expand COBRA subsidies as a major achievement. Unions, health insurance companies, and Democrats alike have unified behind the idea of an insurance bailout. The alliance is unlikely, but it makes sense for the moment as access to health care is a top priority for most people right now. But progressive advocates who pushed Medicare for All into a national conversation say an insurance industry bailout can’t solve the national health care crisis, which predated the current pandemic and will last long after things start to reopen.
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders wrote an op-ed on April 28 criticizing Democrats’ push to subsidize COBRA. “Subsidizing COBRA, as they have suggested, would be both expensive and ineffective: Not only would health insurance corporations make massive profits off the plan—profits that come at the cost of the American taxpayer—but it would still leave tens of millions uninsured or underinsured,” he wrote. “Expanding COBRA during the pandemic would do nothing to cover those who already lacked insurance,” he added, noting that the program’s subsidies for premiums would not provide relief for low-income workers who still have to pay high deductibles.
Wendell Potter, former Cigna vice president turned Medicare for All advocate, has been warning online against congressional aid to the insurance industry at a time when major companies are reaping profits. “Beware of my old industry — health insurers — trying to get a taxpayer handout,” he tweeted. “We should spend that money on providing healthcare to needy Americans, not subsidizing an inefficient & undeserving industry.”