theintercept--2020-02-16--A Professor Was Called a Pedophile Because of His Work. Academics Are Keeping Their Distance.

at 3:30 a.m. , a brick crashed through the window of the house of Thomas K. Hubbard , a classics professor at the University of Texas at Austin .
Probably the same night , someone spray-painted “ Child Rapist ” beside his door and a hammer and sickle on his driveway .
More graffiti was spotted some miles from Hubbard ’ s home : “ PEDO HUBBARD , WATCH YOUR BACK.
” The following evening , about a dozen masked members of a student group called Fire the Abusers amassed in the dark on Hubbard ’ s porch and lawn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chanted , “ Thomas Hubbard , come outside .
Pedophile , you can ’ t hide !
” After police escorted Hubbard away in a car , the protesters , mostly women , remained in the street , shouting through a bullhorn .
Fire the Abusers posted a 50-minute video of the event on Twitter .
Hubbard left town .
The actions against Hubbard came at the end of a season of protests demanding the termination of two tenured professors found in violation of university ’ s sexual misconduct policies in 2017 and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the 2019-2020 term .
Activists also pressed the administration to publish the names of all employees who ’ ve run afoul of these policies ; the university complied in January .
Of the 17 violators , 10 lost their jobs .
Many of those fired were low-level employees : a dishwasher , a janitor .
If class inequality was on the students ’ minds , none asked the administration to rehire the dishwasher .
Instead , the report seemed only to reinforce the suspicion that tenure confers a license to harass .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ January student-organized event billed as an “ open dialogue with UT leadership about sexual misconduct policies and practices ” made clear that only one thing would satisfy the activists .
The university president mentioned culture change .
A woman replied : “ How is the culture supposed to change if you continue to keep [ these ] faculty members on staff ?
” The provost voiced the belief that people can “ learn and grow.
” “ NO ” signs rose in the audience .
In other words , axe them all .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Still , there ’ s a difference between Hubbard and the men in the report .
Those men committed acts in violation of university policy and/or the law : from carrying on a prohibited consensual relationship with a graduate student to subjecting students or co-workers to unwanted touching , sexual comments , or stalking .
By contrast , in 30 years of teaching , Hubbard has received no complaints of sexual misconduct .
Nor has he ever committed a criminal offense .
He is being targeted for speech .
Hubbard , an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his work on pederasty — love and sex between adults and adolescent boys — in antiquity .
Most of his work concerns the nerdy depths of classical studies .
But not all .
One article , published in the journal Thymos and on the syllabus of at least one of his courses , has become a battering ram against him .
In “ Sexual Consent and the Adolescent Male , or What Can We Learn From the Greeks , ” Hubbard portrays pederasty in unfailingly glowing terms and suggests that it be a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consent .
He believes that the U.S. should bring its laws more in line with teens ’ actual sexual activity and with most other countries , where the age of sexual consent generally ranges from 14 to 16 ( in Texas , it is 17 ) .
He proposes that boys be free to express their “ natural and powerful sexual urges , ” including with older partners .
Yet — just as he neglects to place pederasty in the context of a slave-holding , woman-subjugating society — he dismisses feminist “ preoccupation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quaint ” and says girls need to be “ protected ” until 17 or 18 , because they are “ easily pressured ” and might get pregnant .
Apparently , girls have no sexual urges and are too dumb to use contraception .
Cued by campus protesters , the Dallas Morning News editorialized that taxpayers should not have to subsidize such trash , putting Hubbard ’ s “ research ” and “ scholarship ” in scare quotes .
The next day , in a letter to the editor , UT Austin President Greg @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are “ outrageous.
” A campus leaflet listed “ trying lower the age of consent ” first among the professor ’ s crimes .
And he wins no friends among some feminists by loudly criticizing UT ’ s Title IX sexual assault policies and the research they ’ re based on .
Hubbard released a Q & A to try to answer his critics .
In it , and in conversation with me , he decried the inadequacy of Twitter , Wikipedia , and the local press to get the facts straight or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is “ peer-reviewed scholarship , ” he told me , indignantly .
His insistence on rational discourse refereed by readers with advanced degrees sounded almost nostalgic .
But whoever is judging it , a bad article is not a fireable offense .
And in fact , reasonable people ( including me ) agree that our high ages of consent , while intended to shield children from adult predation , actually punish normative teen sex ( according to Impact Justice , more than 100,000 people on sex offender registries broke the law as minors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for their views , Hubbard is out in the cold .
Almost no one would speak on the record for this article , for or against him .
A student who admires him had “ no clout , no standing ” and feared attracting the wrong kind of attention .
One classicist said they respect Hubbard ’ s scholarship and endorse his right to free speech but find his views so distasteful that they would have to qualify that support and don ’ t know if that would help or hurt him .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s LGBTQ studies advisory council and the Society for Classical Studies ’ queer-supportive Lambda Classical Caucus , turned away .
The reaction against Hubbard is extreme because the terror of “ pedophilia ” — a term that has come to include desire for anyone under the legal age of consent — is extreme .
We naturalize our revulsion against such desire .
But , as Hubbard ’ s work shows , sexual mores are shaped by history and culture .
For instance , the same 1885 law that raised Britain ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 13 to 16 also criminalized “ gross indecencies , ” or homosexual acts between adult men .
Educational institutions reflect these changing moralities .
“ Non-normative sexual or gender practices or studies have long been targeted by universities , ” not to mention criminal law , said Karma Chávez , chair of the Department of Mexican American and Latino Studies at UT Austin and a member of its LGBTQ studies advisory council .
“ There is the assumption , expressed in right-wing evangelical fears around [ gay ] ‘ recruitment , ’ that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ person is in itself harmful.
” David Halperin , a University of Michigan professor of history and theory of sexuality and a founder of the Lambda Classical Caucus , reminded his LCC colleagues that such assumptions are not far in the past .
In a letter to the caucus urging it to publicly support Hubbard ’ s academic freedom , Halperin recalled the 1980s and ’ 90s , when he was charged with harming undergraduates and “ recruit [ ing ] teenage students … into a high-risk lifestyle of homosexual behavior , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hubbard ’ s work has been endorsed by the North American Man-Boy Love Association , or NAMBLA , a November press release from UT ’ s Students for Safety charged that he “ has used his position to further a community of individuals hoping to prey on underage boys.
” On the LCC listserv , suggestions to support Hubbard were met with his denunciation ; a flame war ensued .
The caucus chairs ruled that since opinions differed , there would be no public statement and no further discussion .
Victory went to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
UT ’ s LGBTQ studies council also rejected Chávez ’ s proposal to issue a letter questioning the idea of speech as harm and stating that Hubbard is “ not harmful and that all of us are implicated potentially in the same kinds of critiques.
” The council was checked by “ homosexual panic that we ’ d be targeted , ” said Chávez , noting the irony .
The historical resonance of this enforced silence did not escape Halperin and others of his generation .
“ I ’ m old enough @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an ‘ unspeakable desire , ’ ’ ” said UCLA classics professor Amy Richlin , using the Victorian euphemism for male homosexuality .
Today “ pedophilia is the ultimate unspeakable desire.
” Social obloquy and criminal penalty make this desire perilous to fulfill — as it should be .
Yet even to speak of it with compassion or curiosity — anything but disgust — is read as advocacy .
Hubbard denies any sexual interest in minors ; he opposes unlawful activity .
It is enough that he is a gay man asking people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most outré — indeed , evil — sexual practice .
The charge of pedophilia clings like the ancient Greek miasma , a moral contagion so potent that it can be eradicated only through the sacrificial death of the guilty person .
Hubbard ’ s banishment-by-association alone , Richlin suggested , is reason to extend him a hand of solidarity .
faculty for unpopular ideas “ oftentimes invoke [ student ] safety concerns as justification , ” said Will Creeley , a senior vice president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the same time as they — regrettably , we are usually told — violate it .
In an email to the Dallas Morning News , UT threaded this needle .
“ The university condemns ideas or world views that exploit or harm individuals , ” it said .
“ However , the study of controversial and even offensive ideas is protected by academic freedom and the First Amendment — as is the right of others to strongly disagree with and draw attention to those ideas.
” In other words , professors can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
What may Hubbard express ?
And , more important , how might his opinions “ exploit or harm ” anyone ?
Students who object to Hubbard ’ s views can decide not to take his classes .
Yet the assumption is that he poses a huge , if undefined , danger — and that campus life is infinitely unsafe .
This anxiety is embedded in a genre of feminism that claims vulnerability both as identity and injury , virtue and grievance .
To get a response from the administration , “ a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ commodified for your consumption , ” said one woman at the forum .
“ I want to know why it took so much out of us for you to finally protect us so we can arm ourselves with information , ” said a student at the forum .
Is political action a display of personal wounds or a mobilization of collective power ?
UT Austin ’ s protesters have had some wins .
The administration released the list of sex policy violators .
It instituted a student-faculty Misconduct Working Group to review its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are on the table .
A new state law , SB 212 , criminalizes the failure by a UT faculty or staff member to report all known or suspected sexual misconduct to the Title IX office , even if disclosed confidentially .
Some of those “ wins ” were grisly .
In 2018 , pharmacology professor Richard Morrisett came under fire after the Austin American-Statesman reported that he had pleaded guilty to domestic abuse of his girlfriend two years earlier .
Dogged by demonstrations and escalating threats of violence from the Revolutionary Student @ @ @ @ @ @ @ RSF : “ The world is better off , if only marginally , for having one less abusive , dangerous man breathing in it.
” If only marginally .
Is safety unattainable ?
Chávez told me that she ’ s talking with students about more restorative responses to sexual harm .
But SB 212 limits what she can do .
“ If you are discovered to not have disclosed , ” she said , “ you face summary termination.
” Meanwhile , Thomas Hubbard is on leave , in an undisclosed location .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1:40 p.m. A previous version of this article stated that the age of consent in Texas is 18 .
It is 17 .

Photo: Ilana Panich-Linsman/The New York Times via Redux
On December 9, 2019 at 3:30 a.m., a brick crashed through the window of the house of Thomas K. Hubbard, a classics professor at the University of Texas at Austin. Probably the same night, someone spray-painted “Child Rapist” beside his door and a hammer and sickle on his driveway. More graffiti was spotted some miles from Hubbard’s home: “PEDO HUBBARD, WATCH YOUR BACK.”
The following evening, about a dozen masked members of a student group called Fire the Abusers amassed in the dark on Hubbard’s porch and lawn. They banged on the door and chanted, “Thomas Hubbard, come outside. Pedophile, you can’t hide!” After police escorted Hubbard away in a car, the protesters, mostly women, remained in the street, shouting through a bullhorn. Fire the Abusers posted a 50-minute video of the event on Twitter. Hubbard left town.
The actions against Hubbard came at the end of a season of protests demanding the termination of two tenured professors found in violation of university’s sexual misconduct policies in 2017 and 2018, temporarily suspended, and reinstated for the 2019-2020 term. Activists also pressed the administration to publish the names of all employees who’ve run afoul of these policies; the university complied in January. Of the 17 violators, 10 lost their jobs. Many of those fired were low-level employees: a dishwasher, a janitor. If class inequality was on the students’ minds, none asked the administration to rehire the dishwasher. Instead, the report seemed only to reinforce the suspicion that tenure confers a license to harass.
In fact, reactions voiced at a January student-organized event billed as an “open dialogue with UT leadership about sexual misconduct policies and practices” made clear that only one thing would satisfy the activists. The university president mentioned culture change. A woman replied: “How is the culture supposed to change if you continue to keep [these] faculty members on staff?” The provost voiced the belief that people can “learn and grow.” “NO” signs rose in the audience. In other words, axe them all.
Few names were named at the forum. Still, there’s a difference between Hubbard and the men in the report. Those men committed acts in violation of university policy and/or the law: from carrying on a prohibited consensual relationship with a graduate student to subjecting students or co-workers to unwanted touching, sexual comments, or stalking. By contrast, in 30 years of teaching, Hubbard has received no complaints of sexual misconduct. Nor has he ever committed a criminal offense. He is being targeted for speech. Hubbard, an eminent scholar, is best known for his work on pederasty — love and sex between adults and adolescent boys — in antiquity. Most of his work concerns the nerdy depths of classical studies. But not all.
One article, published in the journal Thymos and on the syllabus of at least one of his courses, has become a battering ram against him. In “Sexual Consent and the Adolescent Male, or What Can We Learn From the Greeks,” Hubbard portrays pederasty in unfailingly glowing terms and suggests that it be a model for thinking about current ages of consent. He believes that the U.S. should bring its laws more in line with teens’ actual sexual activity and with most other countries, where the age of sexual consent generally ranges from 14 to 16 (in Texas, it is 17). He proposes that boys be free to express their “natural and powerful sexual urges,” including with older partners. Yet — just as he neglects to place pederasty in the context of a slave-holding, woman-subjugating society — he dismisses feminist “preoccupation” with legal gender neutrality as “quaint” and says girls need to be “protected” until 17 or 18, because they are “easily pressured” and might get pregnant. Apparently, girls have no sexual urges and are too dumb to use contraception.
In 30 years of teaching, Hubbard has received no complaints of sexual misconduct. Nor has he ever committed a criminal offense. He is being targeted for speech.
Cued by campus protesters, the Dallas Morning News editorialized that taxpayers should not have to subsidize such trash, putting Hubbard’s “research” and “scholarship” in scare quotes. The next day, in a letter to the editor, UT Austin President Greg Fenves agreed that Hubbard’s ideas are “outrageous.” A campus leaflet listed “trying lower the age of consent” first among the professor’s crimes. And he wins no friends among some feminists by loudly criticizing UT’s Title IX sexual assault policies and the research they’re based on.
Hubbard released a Q&A to try to answer his critics. In it, and in conversation with me, he decried the inadequacy of Twitter, Wikipedia, and the local press to get the facts straight or discuss complex issues. None of these is “peer-reviewed scholarship,” he told me, indignantly. His insistence on rational discourse refereed by readers with advanced degrees sounded almost nostalgic.
But whoever is judging it, a bad article is not a fireable offense. And in fact, reasonable people (including me) agree that our high ages of consent, while intended to shield children from adult predation, actually punish normative teen sex (according to Impact Justice, more than 100,000 people on sex offender registries broke the law as minors).
Yet unlike other academics censured for their views, Hubbard is out in the cold. Almost no one would speak on the record for this article, for or against him. A student who admires him had “no clout, no standing” and feared attracting the wrong kind of attention. One classicist said they respect Hubbard’s scholarship and endorse his right to free speech but find his views so distasteful that they would have to qualify that support and don’t know if that would help or hurt him. Seemingly obvious allies, like UT Austin’s LGBTQ studies advisory council and the Society for Classical Studies’ queer-supportive Lambda Classical Caucus, turned away.
The reaction against Hubbard is extreme because the terror of “pedophilia” — a term that has come to include desire for anyone under the legal age of consent — is extreme. We naturalize our revulsion against such desire. But, as Hubbard’s work shows, sexual mores are shaped by history and culture. For instance, the same 1885 law that raised Britain’s age of consent only for girls from 13 to 16 also criminalized “gross indecencies,” or homosexual acts between adult men.
Educational institutions reflect these changing moralities. “Non-normative sexual or gender practices or studies have long been targeted by universities,” not to mention criminal law, said Karma Chávez, chair of the Department of Mexican American and Latino Studies at UT Austin and a member of its LGBTQ studies advisory council. “There is the assumption, expressed in right-wing evangelical fears around [gay] ‘recruitment,’ that the very speech act by a queer person is in itself harmful.”
Is political action a display of personal wounds or a mobilization of collective power?
David Halperin, a University of Michigan professor of history and theory of sexuality and a founder of the Lambda Classical Caucus, reminded his LCC colleagues that such assumptions are not far in the past. In a letter to the caucus urging it to publicly support Hubbard’s academic freedom, Halperin recalled the 1980s and ’90s, when he was charged with harming undergraduates and “recruit[ing] teenage students … into a high-risk lifestyle of homosexual behavior,” simply by teaching queer studies. Because Hubbard’s work has been endorsed by the North American Man-Boy Love Association, or NAMBLA, a November press release from UT’s Students for Safety charged that he “has used his position to further a community of individuals hoping to prey on underage boys.”
On the LCC listserv, suggestions to support Hubbard were met with his denunciation; a flame war ensued. The caucus chairs ruled that since opinions differed, there would be no public statement and no further discussion. Victory went to the default position: exile the pervert. UT’s LGBTQ studies council also rejected Chávez’s proposal to issue a letter questioning the idea of speech as harm and stating that Hubbard is “not harmful and that all of us are implicated potentially in the same kinds of critiques.” The council was checked by “homosexual panic that we’d be targeted,” said Chávez, noting the irony.
The historical resonance of this enforced silence did not escape Halperin and others of his generation. “I’m old enough to remember when [gayness] was an ‘unspeakable desire,’’” said UCLA classics professor Amy Richlin, using the Victorian euphemism for male homosexuality. Today “pedophilia is the ultimate unspeakable desire.” Social obloquy and criminal penalty make this desire perilous to fulfill — as it should be. Yet even to speak of it with compassion or curiosity — anything but disgust — is read as advocacy. Hubbard denies any sexual interest in minors; he opposes unlawful activity. It is enough that he is a gay man asking people to reconsider what is now considered the most outré — indeed, evil — sexual practice.
The charge of pedophilia clings like the ancient Greek miasma, a moral contagion so potent that it can be eradicated only through the sacrificial death of the guilty person. Hubbard’s banishment-by-association alone, Richlin suggested, is reason to extend him a hand of solidarity.
Universities that discipline faculty for unpopular ideas “oftentimes invoke [student] safety concerns as justification,” said Will Creeley, a senior vice president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. This allows them to defend academic freedom at the same time as they — regrettably, we are usually told — violate it. In an email to the Dallas Morning News, UT threaded this needle. “The university condemns ideas or world views that exploit or harm individuals,” it said. “However, the study of controversial and even offensive ideas is protected by academic freedom and the First Amendment — as is the right of others to strongly disagree with and draw attention to those ideas.” In other words, professors can study and “others” can express. What may Hubbard express? And, more important, how might his opinions “exploit or harm” anyone?
Students who object to Hubbard’s views can decide not to take his classes. Yet the assumption is that he poses a huge, if undefined, danger — and that campus life is infinitely unsafe. This anxiety is embedded in a genre of feminism that claims vulnerability both as identity and injury, virtue and grievance. To get a response from the administration, “a lot of student trauma had to be commodified for your consumption,” said one woman at the forum. “I want to know why it took so much out of us for you to finally protect us so we can arm ourselves with information,” said a student at the forum. Is political action a display of personal wounds or a mobilization of collective power?
UT Austin’s protesters have had some wins. The administration released the list of sex policy violators. It instituted a student-faculty Misconduct Working Group to review its policies and procedures and indicated that most are on the table. A new state law, SB 212, criminalizes the failure by a UT faculty or staff member to report all known or suspected sexual misconduct to the Title IX office, even if disclosed confidentially.
Some of those “wins” were grisly. In 2018, pharmacology professor Richard Morrisett came under fire after the Austin American-Statesman reported that he had pleaded guilty to domestic abuse of his girlfriend two years earlier. Dogged by demonstrations and escalating threats of violence from the Revolutionary Student Front, Morrisett killed himself. Commented RSF: “The world is better off, if only marginally, for having one less abusive, dangerous man breathing in it.” If only marginally. Is safety unattainable?
Chávez told me that she’s talking with students about more restorative responses to sexual harm. But SB 212 limits what she can do. “If you are discovered to not have disclosed,” she said, “you face summary termination.”
Meanwhile, Thomas Hubbard is on leave, in an undisclosed location.
Correction: February 16, 2020, 1:40 p.m.
A previous version of this article stated that the age of consent in Texas is 18. It is 17.


theintercept--2020-02-15--John Legend and Patrisse Cullors on How to Fix the Criminal (In)Justice System

U.S. Official Hints at Possible Plea Deal for Julian Assange
The U.S. ambassador to Australia said there could be a “resolution” to the Justice Department’s pursuit of Assange.


theintercept--2020-02-15--Foreign-Funded Dark-Money Groups Lobby IRS to Repeal Remaining Reporting Requirements

Lobbyists for foreign-funded groups have pushed the administration to move forward with the rule , which is close to being finalized .
The one check on foreign contributions to dark-money groups has been the Schedule B form , which reports 501 ( c ) donor information confidentially to the Internal Revenue Service .
Under a new rule proposed last September by the Treasury Department and the IRS , nonprofits will no longer be required to report donor information , even to the government , allowing an unprecedented level of secrecy .
Foreign spending , whether by a foreign national or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under federal law .
But the law has been poorly enforced , and the few instances in which penalties have been applied in recent years have come in reaction to publicly reported foreign corporate spending to Super PACs , such as The Intercept ’ s reporting on Chinese corporate donations in 2016 and the recent federal indictment over a shell company owned by a Russian national that gave to President Donald Trump ’ s Super PAC in 2018 .
In recent years , 501 ( c ) nonprofits have become the entities of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nonprofit groups , which do not have to report any donor information to the public , can receive unlimited contributions from any source and , thanks to the Supreme Court ’ s 2010 Citizens United decision , spend unlimited amounts on elections .
Dark-money groups backed by foreign corporate donors are supporting the Trump administration ’ s decision to roll back one of the last remaining ways for authorities to monitor the flow of unlawful campaign cash in American elections .
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce , the largest business lobby organization in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ million to influence the last 2018 midterm election cycle using its general fund .
The group , which has foreign corporate donors , has lobbied in support of the IRS rule to repeal the Schedule B requirement , claiming in a letter to officials that the accidental leak of donors could reduce corporate free speech rights .
“ Identifying , harassing , and intimidating the organization ’ s supporters is a chief means of silencing that organization ’ s speech , ” wrote Caroline L. Harris , the Chambers ’ chief tax policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the deputy general counsel of the group , in a regulatory letter to officials overseeing the rule change .
“ The Chamber applauds the work of Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service ( IRS ) in eliminating onerous reporting requirements.
” The National Association of Manufacturers , which counts several corporations based in foreign countries as members , in a letter to IRS officials , similarly called the Schedule B requirement an “ unnecessary administrative filings that raise the potential for misuse in a way that chills protected speech.
” Both NAM and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more than $ 160 million a year , are organized as 501 ( c ) ( 6 ) trade associations and under no obligation to disclose donor money to the public — only to the government through the annual Schedule B form to its 990 annual filing .
After the Citizens United decision , the two groups led an effort to defeat the DISCLOSE Act , legislation that would have forced groups engaged high-dollar election advocacy to reveal donor information .
The Chamber also lobbied successfully to stop President Barack Obama from issuing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to disclose grants to 501 ( c ) groups .
Foreign-based firms such as Brazilian petrochemical firm Braskem , Al Zayani Investments in Bahrain , and Turkish conglomerate Tekfen are listed on the Chamber ’ s website as dues-paying members .
Faced with criticism in the past that its foreign funding might bleed into the Chamber ’ s vast domestic lobbying and campaign spending budget , the group has claimed that any foreign donations are walled off from domestic funds , and that foreign donors make up a small percentage of its overall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Schedule B requirement could make those claims impossible to verify .
A large foreign national firm could provide multimillion-dollar donations for use in U.S. elections to the Chamber under the new rule and such giving would never be reported to government officials .
That ’ s precisely the danger of removing Schedule B forms , campaign finance experts warn .
The Campaign Legal Center , a campaign finance watchdog that has filed the ethics complaints that led to enforcement action on foreign money in the past , cautioned the IRS that the rule @ @ @ @ @ @ @ foreign spending .
“ Congress has failed to pass new transparency legislation , and the FEC has failed to enforce the transparency laws that are on the books , ” said Brendan Fischer , director of Campaign Legal Center ’ s federal reform program .
“ As a result , the only donor disclosure reports that dark-money groups file with any federal agency are the confidential Schedule B reports filed with the IRS .
These confidential donor reports are one of the few ways that federal agencies could detect and deter foreign money @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not hard to comprehend the many ways in which completely secret legal entities could incentivize illegal election behavior .
In 2016 , reporters from the Telegraph conducted a sting operation on a Republican campaign operative working in support of Trump .
The operative was offered a $ 2 million check from a Chinese businessman by the reporters .
He responded by offering a plan for how to conceal the money , suggesting that it be routed through his consulting firm to a pair of 501 ( c ) 4 groups and then to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is also investigating the National Rifle Association over allegations that the group , which is organized as a 501 ( c ) 4 , may have received financial support from Russian sources .
McClatchy reported that counterintelligence officials believe that Russian interests may have contributed to the NRA ’ s $ 30 million election advertising campaign in 2016 .
Foreign firms increasingly finance major American business associations .
As The Intercept has previously reported , a major Chinese chemical company joined the American Chemistry Council , a 501 ( c ) 6 that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elections .
The Trump administration had originally tried to remove the Schedule B form last summer in a surprise decision .
A federal judge in Montana , however , ruled that the IRS had failed to follow proper regulatory procedure and ordered the agency to conduct a formal rule-making to allow the public and stakeholders to weigh in on the change .
“ The rise of ‘ dark money ’ in U.S. elections has made it easy for foreign entities to contravene these laws by funneling money into U.S. elections through groups that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disclose their donors , such as 501 ( c ) ( 4 ) social welfare organizations and 501 ( c ) ( 6 ) trade associations , ” wrote the Campaign Legal Center in a letter to the IRS .
“ This change would further enable foreign entities to donate millions of dollars to such organizations for the purpose of influencing U.S. elections without any risk of scrutiny by federal regulators.
” Republican-aligned think tanks have joined the business-backed push to eliminate the Schedule B .
Several nonprofits backed by billionaire Charles Koch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Prosperity , testified on February 7 in support of the rule change .
FreedomWorks , a conservative grassroots group backed by business interests , has also mobilized hundreds of letters to the agency .
Hans von Spakovsky , a former Federal Election Commission member now with the Heritage Foundation , appeared at the hearing alongside other conservative activists in support of the rule change .
Von Spakosvsky , an avowed critic of campaign finance regulations and voting rights laws , testified that “ their claim that this will somehow allow foreign money to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” according to a transcript of his remarks .
Von Spakovsky said the FEC had plenty of authority and expertise in combating foreign money during his tenure , despite the fact that the agency has historically only intervened to investigate foreign money through disclosed political action committees on a few occasions in its 45-year history .
He did not cite any examples of the FEC investigating 501 ( c ) groups .

Dark-money groups backed by foreign corporate donors are supporting the Trump administration’s decision to roll back one of the last remaining ways for authorities to monitor the flow of unlawful campaign cash in American elections.
In recent years, 501(c) nonprofits have become the entities of choice for secret campaign spending. These nonprofit groups, which do not have to report any donor information to the public, can receive unlimited contributions from any source and, thanks to the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision, spend unlimited amounts on elections.
Foreign spending, whether by a foreign national or a foreign-owned corporation, is still illegal under federal law. But the law has been poorly enforced, and the few instances in which penalties have been applied in recent years have come in reaction to publicly reported foreign corporate spending to Super PACs, such as The Intercept’s reporting on Chinese corporate donations in 2016 and the recent federal indictment over a shell company owned by a Russian national that gave to President Donald Trump’s Super PAC in 2018.
The one check on foreign contributions to dark-money groups has been the Schedule B form, which reports 501(c) donor information confidentially to the Internal Revenue Service. Under a new rule proposed last September by the Treasury Department and the IRS, nonprofits will no longer be required to report donor information, even to the government, allowing an unprecedented level of secrecy.
Lobbyists for foreign-funded groups have pushed the administration to move forward with the rule, which is close to being finalized.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the largest business lobby organization in the world, spent over $10 million to influence the last 2018 midterm election cycle using its general fund. The group, which has foreign corporate donors, has lobbied in support of the IRS rule to repeal the Schedule B requirement, claiming in a letter to officials that the accidental leak of donors could reduce corporate free speech rights.
“Identifying, harassing, and intimidating the organization’s supporters is a chief means of silencing that organization’s speech,” wrote Caroline L. Harris, the Chambers’ chief tax policy counsel, and Ryan P. Meyers, the deputy general counsel of the group, in a regulatory letter to officials overseeing the rule change. “The Chamber applauds the work of Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in eliminating onerous reporting requirements.”
The National Association of Manufacturers, which counts several corporations based in foreign countries as members, in a letter to IRS officials, similarly called the Schedule B requirement an “unnecessary administrative filings that raise the potential for misuse in a way that chills protected speech.”
Both NAM and the Chamber of Commerce, which spends more than $160 million a year, are organized as 501(c)(6) trade associations and under no obligation to disclose donor money to the public — only to the government through the annual Schedule B form to its 990 annual filing. After the Citizens United decision, the two groups led an effort to defeat the DISCLOSE Act, legislation that would have forced groups engaged high-dollar election advocacy to reveal donor information. The Chamber also lobbied successfully to stop President Barack Obama from issuing an executive order to force government contractors to disclose grants to 501(c) groups.
Foreign-based firms such as Brazilian petrochemical firm Braskem, Al Zayani Investments in Bahrain, and Turkish conglomerate Tekfen are listed on the Chamber’s website as dues-paying members. Faced with criticism in the past that its foreign funding might bleed into the Chamber’s vast domestic lobbying and campaign spending budget, the group has claimed that any foreign donations are walled off from domestic funds, and that foreign donors make up a small percentage of its overall budget.
But the removal of the Schedule B requirement could make those claims impossible to verify. A large foreign national firm could provide multimillion-dollar donations for use in U.S. elections to the Chamber under the new rule and such giving would never be reported to government officials.
That’s precisely the danger of removing Schedule B forms, campaign finance experts warn. The Campaign Legal Center, a campaign finance watchdog that has filed the ethics complaints that led to enforcement action on foreign money in the past, cautioned the IRS that the rule would simply open the door to more foreign spending.
“Congress has failed to pass new transparency legislation, and the FEC has failed to enforce the transparency laws that are on the books,” said Brendan Fischer, director of Campaign Legal Center’s federal reform program. “As a result, the only donor disclosure reports that dark-money groups file with any federal agency are the confidential Schedule B reports filed with the IRS. These confidential donor reports are one of the few ways that federal agencies could detect and deter foreign money in U.S. elections.”
It’s not hard to comprehend the many ways in which completely secret legal entities could incentivize illegal election behavior. In 2016, reporters from the Telegraph conducted a sting operation on a Republican campaign operative working in support of Trump. The operative was offered a $2 million check from a Chinese businessman by the reporters. He responded by offering a plan for how to conceal the money, suggesting that it be routed through his consulting firm to a pair of 501(c)4 groups and then to a pro-Trump Ssuper PAC.
The FBI is also investigating the National Rifle Association over allegations that the group, which is organized as a 501(c)4, may have received financial support from Russian sources. McClatchy reported that counterintelligence officials believe that Russian interests may have contributed to the NRA’s $30 million election advertising campaign in 2016.
Foreign firms increasingly finance major American business associations. As The Intercept has previously reported, a major Chinese chemical company joined the American Chemistry Council, a 501(c)6 that routinely lobbies lawmakers and spends money in elections.
The Trump administration had originally tried to remove the Schedule B form last summer in a surprise decision. A federal judge in Montana, however, ruled that the IRS had failed to follow proper regulatory procedure and ordered the agency to conduct a formal rule-making to allow the public and stakeholders to weigh in on the change.
“The rise of ‘dark money’ in U.S. elections has made it easy for foreign entities to contravene these laws by funneling money into U.S. elections through groups that that [sic] do not publicly disclose their donors, such as 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations and 501(c)(6) trade associations,” wrote the Campaign Legal Center in a letter to the IRS. “This change would further enable foreign entities to donate millions of dollars to such organizations for the purpose of influencing U.S. elections without any risk of scrutiny by federal regulators.”
Republican-aligned think tanks have joined the business-backed push to eliminate the Schedule B. Several nonprofits backed by billionaire Charles Koch, including his marquee group Americans for Prosperity, testified on February 7 in support of the rule change. FreedomWorks, a conservative grassroots group backed by business interests, has also mobilized hundreds of letters to the agency.
Hans von Spakovsky, a former Federal Election Commission member now with the Heritage Foundation, appeared at the hearing alongside other conservative activists in support of the rule change.
Von Spakosvsky, an avowed critic of campaign finance regulations and voting rights laws, testified that “their claim that this will somehow allow foreign money to suddenly flood into American elections is absurd,” according to a transcript of his remarks. Von Spakovsky said the FEC had plenty of authority and expertise in combating foreign money during his tenure, despite the fact that the agency has historically only intervened to investigate foreign money through disclosed political action committees on a few occasions in its 45-year history. He did not cite any examples of the FEC investigating 501(c) groups.


theintercept--2020-02-15--TV Executives Celebrate Unprecedented Flood of Bloomberg Campaign Spending

“ But obviously , ” he added , “ we expect it to be very strong and particularly , as I mentioned , in the markets of our local TV stations.
” Lachlan Murdoch , the chief executive of Fox Corp. , the parent company of Fox News , is one of several media executives to welcome Bloomberg ’ s unprecedented spending spree on television advertisements .
In a February 5 briefing for investors , Murdoch noted that he had heard “ the Bloomberg campaign has expected to sort of double its advertising spend earlier this week.
” The billionaire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ makes purchases on a week-to-week basis , making it difficult to project the ultimate benefit for his company .
Fox News hosts regularly bash former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg as a globalist demagogue intent on seizing Americans ’ firearms and big gulp sodas .
High-level executives at the company , however , are much more enthusiastic about the billionaire politician and Democratic presidential candidate .
Bloomberg , the ninth wealthiest person in the world , with a fortune estimated at almost $ 62 billion , has upended the Democratic presidential primary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ smashed through historical records in a matter of weeks .
Advertising Analytics , which tracks campaign spending , reported Thursday that Bloomberg has already spent $ 363 million on cable , broadcast , and radio advertisements alone .
The 2020 campaign is shaping up to be an incredible financial opportunity for media companies , with one market research firm recently estimating that nearly $ 7 billion of paid advertising be spent this year , up over 60 percent since the 2016 presidential race .
Bloomberg alone has enticed media executives to see the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The political is going to be huge this year , ” boasted Christopher Ripley , president and chief executive of Sinclair Broadcast Group , one of the largest owners of television stations in the country , speaking last month at the Citi 2020 Global TMT West conference in Las Vegas .
“ The amount of fundraising that ’ s happened through this year has broken all records .
And the good news about politicians is they never return the money , they spend it , ” Ripley quipped .
Sinclair , said Ripley @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that and the entrance of players like Bloomberg.
” Meredith Corporation — which owns television stations in several states , including Oregon , Alabama , Georgia , Missouri , and Arizona — also reported its quarterly results this month .
“ Bloomberg is certainly having an impact across most of our footprint , ” beamed Patrick McCreery , an executive with Meredith , during the call with investors .
“ If the headlines are to be believed , ” said McCreery , “ he ’ s going to double the spending , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bloomberg ’ s announcement last November , shares of publicly traded media conglomerates , including Nexstar Media Group and Gray Television , have been on the rise .
“ When politicians go to war , own the arms dealers , ” Steven Cahall , an analyst with Wells Fargo , wrote in a recent report cited by CNBC .
Broadcasting corporations , Cahall noted , “ are jazzed to have Bloomberg in the fray.
” The billionaire mogul has already caused “ a meaningful uptick in Q4 political revenue vs. company plans.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spending — a practice banned or sharply restricted in most industrialized countries — creates an inherent tension with the private , for-profit U.S. media market .
The same media companies voters turn to for help to make thoughtful decisions about the candidates rely heavily on campaign advertisements designed to manipulate viewers with provocative , low-information emotional appeals and other forms of deceptive electioneering .
The National Association of Broadcasters , a trade group that lobbies for broadcasters , has long fought to maintain the status quo , opposing efforts over the years to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ free air time to candidates .
The group successfully lobbied to block both the Federal Communications Commission and Congress from enacting rules that would have provided even two hours of public air time to candidates .
In recent months , the NAB has pushed back against FCC efforts to increase enforcement of relatively minor disclosure requirements for television broadcasters to publish invoices from groups or candidates spending money on political advertisements .
The frenzy for presidential campaign cycle profits likely shaped the media environment for Donald Trump ’ s election .
In the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , media executives openly celebrated his entry , hoping for a bonanza in ratings and political ad-buying .
“ The more they spend , the better it is for us and : Go Donald !
Keep getting out there , ” said Les Moonves , the former chief executive of the CBS Corporation , which is now known as ViacomCBS .
Moonves , who later stepped down over numerous allegations of sexual harassment , summed up his thoughts about Trump at a meeting in San Francisco ’ s Palace Hotel during the 2016 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ circus ” he said , “ may not be good for America , but it ’ s damn good for CBS , that ’ s all I got to say .
”

Fox News hosts regularly bash former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg as a globalist demagogue intent on seizing Americans’ firearms and big gulp sodas. High-level executives at the company, however, are much more enthusiastic about the billionaire politician and Democratic presidential candidate.
Lachlan Murdoch, the chief executive of Fox Corp., the parent company of Fox News, is one of several media executives to welcome Bloomberg’s unprecedented spending spree on television advertisements. In a February 5 briefing for investors, Murdoch noted that he had heard “the Bloomberg campaign has expected to sort of double its advertising spend earlier this week.” The billionaire’s campaign, Murdoch noted, makes purchases on a week-to-week basis, making it difficult to project the ultimate benefit for his company.
“But obviously,” he added, “we expect it to be very strong and particularly, as I mentioned, in the markets of our local TV stations.”
Bloomberg, the ninth wealthiest person in the world, with a fortune estimated at almost $62 billion, has upended the Democratic presidential primary with an infusion of cash that has smashed through historical records in a matter of weeks. Advertising Analytics, which tracks campaign spending, reported Thursday that Bloomberg has already spent $363 million on cable, broadcast, and radio advertisements alone.
The 2020 campaign is shaping up to be an incredible financial opportunity for media companies, with one market research firm recently estimating that nearly $7 billion of paid advertising be spent this year, up over 60 percent since the 2016 presidential race.
Bloomberg alone has enticed media executives to see the race as a golden opportunity.
“The political is going to be huge this year,” boasted Christopher Ripley, president and chief executive of Sinclair Broadcast Group, one of the largest owners of television stations in the country, speaking last month at the Citi 2020 Global TMT West conference in Las Vegas. “The amount of fundraising that’s happened through this year has broken all records. And the good news about politicians is they never return the money, they spend it,” Ripley quipped.
Sinclair, said Ripley, is “already benefiting tremendously from that and the entrance of players like Bloomberg.”
Meredith Corporation — which owns television stations in several states, including Oregon, Alabama, Georgia, Missouri, and Arizona — also reported its quarterly results this month. “Bloomberg is certainly having an impact across most of our footprint,” beamed Patrick McCreery, an executive with Meredith, during the call with investors.
“If the headlines are to be believed,” said McCreery, “he’s going to double the spending, and that will be beneficial certainly.”
Since Bloomberg’s announcement last November, shares of publicly traded media conglomerates, including Nexstar Media Group and Gray Television, have been on the rise.
“When politicians go to war, own the arms dealers,” Steven Cahall, an analyst with Wells Fargo, wrote in a recent report cited by CNBC. Broadcasting corporations, Cahall noted, “are jazzed to have Bloomberg in the fray.” The billionaire mogul has already caused “a meaningful uptick in Q4 political revenue vs. company plans.”
The use of private funds for campaign spending — a practice banned or sharply restricted in most industrialized countries — creates an inherent tension with the private, for-profit U.S. media market. The same media companies voters turn to for help to make thoughtful decisions about the candidates rely heavily on campaign advertisements designed to manipulate viewers with provocative, low-information emotional appeals and other forms of deceptive electioneering.
The National Association of Broadcasters, a trade group that lobbies for broadcasters, has long fought to maintain the status quo, opposing efforts over the years to require television and radio stations to provide free air time to candidates. The group successfully lobbied to block both the Federal Communications Commission and Congress from enacting rules that would have provided even two hours of public air time to candidates.
In recent months, the NAB has pushed back against FCC efforts to increase enforcement of relatively minor disclosure requirements for television broadcasters to publish invoices from groups or candidates spending money on political advertisements.
The frenzy for presidential campaign cycle profits likely shaped the media environment for Donald Trump’s election.
In the early days of Trump’s candidacy, media executives openly celebrated his entry, hoping for a bonanza in ratings and political ad-buying. “The more they spend, the better it is for us and: Go Donald! Keep getting out there,” said Les Moonves, the former chief executive of the CBS Corporation, which is now known as ViacomCBS.
Moonves, who later stepped down over numerous allegations of sexual harassment, summed up his thoughts about Trump at a meeting in San Francisco’s Palace Hotel during the 2016 campaign. Trump’s campaign “circus” he said, “may not be good for America, but it’s damn good for CBS, that’s all I got to say.”


theintercept--2020-02-17--In Final Weeks of Heated Texas Congressional Primary, Unions and Progressive Groups Throw $350,000 B

In Final Weeks of Heated Texas Congressional Primary, Unions and Progressive Groups Throw $350,000 Behind Jessica Cisneros

“ Since we endorsed Jessica we ’ ve been spreading the word to our members and volunteers over Texas who have been sending text messages to folks in their community , ” said Maurice Mitchell , the national director of the Working Families Party .
“ Now we ’ re stepping it up with a pretty robust and intense campaign effort in support of her .
Jessica ’ s race is a top priority for us because of what she stands for and because we think this is the right fight to have.
” The groups behind the independent campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Communication Workers of America , the Service Employees International Union , and the Texas Organizing Project .
All have previously endorsed Cisneros , a human rights lawyer and 26-year-old first-time candidate for the House of Representatives .
The money will be going toward funding canvassers in Laredo , phone banking , direct mail , and digital and radio ads that will be running in both English and Spanish , according to the groups , whose plans have not previously been reported .
A coalition of progressive groups and labor unions announced on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ least $ 350,000 in support of Texas congressional candidate Jessica Cisneros , ratcheting up the momentum in the final two weeks ahead of her high-stakes primary against Rep. Henry Cuellar , one of the most conservative Democrats in Congress .
The outside spending comes after Cuellar , who has represented Texas ’ s 28th Congressional District since 2005 , has received nearly a million dollars in support from conservative groups .
Last week the Brownsville Herald reported that the U.S Chamber of Commerce launched a six-figure TV ad buy for Cuellar .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out $ 200,000 on the ads , hasn ’ t spent so much on a Democrat since 2014 .
The Chamber is joining a dark-money group , American Workers for Progress , which has reportedly spent over $ 700,000 to tout Cuellar ’ s record on health care .
The American Banking Association , a lobby group for the financial industry , jumped in the race last week too , spending $ 60,000 on pro-Cuellar radio ads .
Cuellar ’ s campaign has also ramped up its own efforts , running its first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attacking her for supporting abortion , taking money from outside the district , and claiming her opposition to the oil and gas industry will cost residents of the district jobs .
Though Cisneros is severely outgunned by Cuellar , who had $ 2.9 million in cash-on-hand at the end of 2019 , she has demonstrated remarkable fundraising prowess .
In the fourth quarter of 2019 , she raised more than $ 513,000 , exceeding Cuellar ’ s Q4 haul of $ 431,000 .
In her bid to unseat the 15-year incumbent , Cisneros @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sen. Elizabeth Warren , Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , the Working Families Party , EMILY ’ s List , and the Communications Workers of America District 6 .
By December , she had earned the added backing of J Street , MoveOn , NARAL , and Planned Parenthood .
In late January , she got the endorsement of the Texas AFL-CIO , a major coup as big labor groups rarely buck the party establishment in favor of insurgent candidates .
Three days later , she was endorsed by Sen. Bernie Sanders , followed quickly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jayapal .
SEIU announced its endorsement of Cisneros on Friday , as did former Housing and Urban Development secretary and presidential candidate Julián Castro .
With the backing of both the labor movement and high-profile liberal politicians and organizations , progressives are hopeful they can unseat an anti-choice Democrat who has taken significant campaign contributions from the fossil fuel industry and big business , and has voted for funding a border wall in his own southern Texas district .
Most recently , Cuellar voted against the PRO Act , a major labor reform @ @ @ @ @ @ @ among other things , he didn ’ t like that it would overturn right-to-work laws .
the planned spending blitz , other progressive allies of Cisneros have been ramping up their support for the home stretch .
NARAL dispatched a full-time organizer to Laredo last week who will work with the Cisneros campaign through the remainder of the election .
And a week before the primary , according to NARAL spokesperson Kristin Ford , the organization ’ s president Ilyse Hogue will be traveling to the 28th District , where she will hold @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cisneros .
EMILY ’ s List has also been working to train and support Cisneros ’ s campaign staff , and spokesperson Benjamin Ray said their supporters have been “ very excited ” to help unseat the last two anti-choice Democrats in the House : Cuellar and Rep. Dan Lipinski in Illinois .
Texas Forward , a super PAC affiliated with EMILY ’ s List , has spent at least $ 1.2 million on advertising to support Cisneros .
One ad compared the two candidates , and argued there ’ s a “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
J Street , which doesn ’ t typically wade into Democratic primaries , has already bundled over $ 30,000 for Cisneros ’ s campaign .
“ We ’ re going to keep pushing our top donors in these last few weeks so I expect that number to rise , ” said Ilya Braverman , J Street ’ s national political director .
“ Unlike other groups that do independent expenditures , we focus on direct contributions the campaign can spend directly on staff and pizza and things like that.
” Other statewide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cisneros ’ s primary .
Rick Levy , president of the Texas AFL-CIO , told The Intercept that their federation has been communicating with its members about their Cisneros endorsement and why it is so important .
“ We have been very active in pointing out contrasts with Cuellar and we ’ ve had demonstrations in Laredo and San Antonio to highlight his opposition to the PRO Act , ” he said .
His federation doesn ’ t have a federal PAC so they ’ re not giving direct financial contributions , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the state are going door-to-door to canvass .
“ It ’ s been a long time since we ’ ve had real contested primaries , and we as a labor movement are trying to be really strategic about what our goals and interests are , ” he said .
The Texas AFL-CIO is focused primarily on flipping the Texas House , and while they ’ ve endorsed in other congressional races , Cisneros is also the only candidate they ’ ve endorsed for Congress who is taking on an incumbent Democrat .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we need more in Congress , ” said Shane Larson , the senior director of government affairs and policy for Communications Workers of America .
“ It ’ s one thing for our union to want to see Henry Cuellar replaced because he votes with corporations and Wall Street time and time again , but Jessica is really such a phenomenal person and phenomenal candidate , and she represents the kind of people who just do not have representation in Congress today .
”

A coalition of progressive groups and labor unions announced on Monday they’ll be spending at least $350,000 in support of Texas congressional candidate Jessica Cisneros, ratcheting up the momentum in the final two weeks ahead of her high-stakes primary against Rep. Henry Cuellar, one of the most conservative Democrats in Congress.
The groups behind the independent campaign effort are the Working Families Party, the Communication Workers of America, the Service Employees International Union, and the Texas Organizing Project. All have previously endorsed Cisneros, a human rights lawyer and 26-year-old first-time candidate for the House of Representatives. The money will be going toward funding canvassers in Laredo, phone banking, direct mail, and digital and radio ads that will be running in both English and Spanish, according to the groups, whose plans have not previously been reported.
“Since we endorsed Jessica we’ve been spreading the word to our members and volunteers over Texas who have been sending text messages to folks in their community,” said Maurice Mitchell, the national director of the Working Families Party. “Now we’re stepping it up with a pretty robust and intense campaign effort in support of her. Jessica’s race is a top priority for us because of what she stands for and because we think this is the right fight to have.”
The outside spending comes after Cuellar, who has represented Texas’s 28th Congressional District since 2005, has received nearly a million dollars in support from conservative groups. Last week the Brownsville Herald reported that the U.S Chamber of Commerce launched a six-figure TV ad buy for Cuellar. The big business lobby, which is shelling out $200,000 on the ads, hasn’t spent so much on a Democrat since 2014. The Chamber is joining a dark-money group, American Workers for Progress, which has reportedly spent over $700,000 to tout Cuellar’s record on health care. The American Banking Association, a lobby group for the financial industry, jumped in the race last week too, spending $60,000 on pro-Cuellar radio ads.
Cuellar’s campaign has also ramped up its own efforts, running its first negative ad against Cisneros last week, attacking her for supporting abortion, taking money from outside the district, and claiming her opposition to the oil and gas industry will cost residents of the district jobs.
Though Cisneros is severely outgunned by Cuellar, who had $2.9 million in cash-on-hand at the end of 2019, she has demonstrated remarkable fundraising prowess. In the fourth quarter of 2019, she raised more than $513,000, exceeding Cuellar’s Q4 haul of $431,000.
In her bid to unseat the 15-year incumbent, Cisneros landed early endorsements in the fall from Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the Working Families Party, EMILY’s List, and the Communications Workers of America District 6. By December, she had earned the added backing of J Street, MoveOn, NARAL, and Planned Parenthood. In late January, she got the endorsement of the Texas AFL-CIO, a major coup as big labor groups rarely buck the party establishment in favor of insurgent candidates. Three days later, she was endorsed by Sen. Bernie Sanders, followed quickly by Congressional Progressive Caucus Co-Chair Rep. Pramila Jayapal. SEIU announced its endorsement of Cisneros on Friday, as did former Housing and Urban Development secretary and presidential candidate Julián Castro.
With the backing of both the labor movement and high-profile liberal politicians and organizations, progressives are hopeful they can unseat an anti-choice Democrat who has taken significant campaign contributions from the fossil fuel industry and big business, and has voted for funding a border wall in his own southern Texas district. Most recently, Cuellar voted against the PRO Act, a major labor reform bill with bipartisan support, because, among other things, he didn’t like that it would overturn right-to-work laws.
In addition to the planned spending blitz, other progressive allies of Cisneros have been ramping up their support for the home stretch. NARAL dispatched a full-time organizer to Laredo last week who will work with the Cisneros campaign through the remainder of the election. And a week before the primary, according to NARAL spokesperson Kristin Ford, the organization’s president Ilyse Hogue will be traveling to the 28th District, where she will hold public events and knock on doors for Cisneros.
EMILY’s List has also been working to train and support Cisneros’s campaign staff, and spokesperson Benjamin Ray said their supporters have been “very excited” to help unseat the last two anti-choice Democrats in the House: Cuellar and Rep. Dan Lipinski in Illinois. Texas Forward, a super PAC affiliated with EMILY’s List, has spent at least $1.2 million on advertising to support Cisneros. One ad compared the two candidates, and argued there’s a “damn big difference” between the Democrats.
J Street, which doesn’t typically wade into Democratic primaries, has already bundled over $30,000 for Cisneros’s campaign. “We’re going to keep pushing our top donors in these last few weeks so I expect that number to rise,” said Ilya Braverman, J Street’s national political director. “Unlike other groups that do independent expenditures, we focus on direct contributions the campaign can spend directly on staff and pizza and things like that.”
Other statewide unions in Texas are also focusing on Cisneros’s primary.
Rick Levy, president of the Texas AFL-CIO, told The Intercept that their federation has been communicating with its members about their Cisneros endorsement and why it is so important. “We have been very active in pointing out contrasts with Cuellar and we’ve had demonstrations in Laredo and San Antonio to highlight his opposition to the PRO Act,” he said. His federation doesn’t have a federal PAC so they’re not giving direct financial contributions, but Levy said union members from all over the state are going door-to-door to canvass. “It’s been a long time since we’ve had real contested primaries, and we as a labor movement are trying to be really strategic about what our goals and interests are,” he said. The Texas AFL-CIO is focused primarily on flipping the Texas House, and while they’ve endorsed in other congressional races, Cisneros is also the only candidate they’ve endorsed for Congress who is taking on an incumbent Democrat.
“Jessica just exemplifies the kind of person we need more in Congress,” said Shane Larson, the senior director of government affairs and policy for Communications Workers of America. “It’s one thing for our union to want to see Henry Cuellar replaced because he votes with corporations and Wall Street time and time again, but Jessica is really such a phenomenal person and phenomenal candidate, and she represents the kind of people who just do not have representation in Congress today.”


theintercept--2020-02-17--NSA Whistleblower Reality Winner Submits Clemency Petition Alongside More Than 4,000 Letters of Supp

NSA Whistleblower Reality Winner Submits Clemency Petition Alongside More Than 4,000 Letters of Support

The attorney , Alison Grinter , encountered Winner through Crystal Mason , a Texas mother who served time alongside Winner in a Fort Worth federal prison after receiving a five-year sentence for “ illegal voting ” in the 2016 presidential election .
Mason and Winner became friends in the facility ’ s newsroom , where they spent long hours watching TV news and debating current events .
After hearing about Winner from Mason , Grinter began corresponding with the whistleblower ’ s mother , Billie Winner-Davis , on Twitter .
Last year , the two women drove hours across the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the panhandle , and Grinter down from Dallas — to meet at an Austin restaurant , where they spoke late into the night .
“ It was incredible talking to her , ” Winner-Davis said of Grinter , “ because she had the same dream and vision that I had and the kind of passionate energy about it.
” Grinter pulled together a petition — signed by Winner and delivered to the Trump administration ’ s Office of the Pardon Attorney — that invokes the whistleblower ’ s military service ; her health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the circumstances of her case .
Winner , who was reported to have leaked an NSA document detailing attempted Russian cyberattacks against U.S. election systems , is serving the longest federal sentence ever given to a journalistic source under the Espionage Act , World War I-era legislation increasingly used in recent years to prosecute government insiders who share classified information with journalists .
“ Our country was attacked by a hostile foreign power , ” Grinter said at a Monday press conference in Dallas alongside Winner ’ s family .
“ Our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we forgive our truth tellers and begin the job of rebuilding what was taken from us : election security , accountability for those who endeavor to undermine our democracy , and safeguarding the American right to government by and for the people .
None of this can begin in earnest while we are still punishing those who tell us the truth.
” Winner was widely reported as the source for a June 2017 article in The Intercept on an NSA document that detailed phishing attacks by Russian military intelligence on local U.S. election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anonymously ; The Intercept ’ s parent company , First Look Media , contributed to Winner ’ s legal fund through the Press Freedom Defense Fund after learning of her arrest .
Like Winner ’ s sentence , Mason ’ s penalty had also sparked widespread outrage .
Mason , who was on supervised release from an earlier prison sentence , said she did not know she was ineligible to vote when she cast the provisional ballot that ended up never being counted .
That new conviction for “ illegal voting ” sent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conditions of her release .
“ We were both sitting up in here as a political prisoner , ” Mason told The Intercept of the solidarity she felt with Winner .
“ She shouldn ’ t be in prison .
She was doing what anybody should have done if they had any kind of value in our country , ” said Mason .
“ She ’ s really a hero.
” the petition , Grinter will also send the Justice Department ’ s Office of the Pardon Attorney Winner ’ s Air Force @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some 4,500 letters of support — including ones from privacy and press freedom advocates ; an Obama-era NSA whistleblower ; Jim Risen and Kate Myers of the Press Freedom Defense Fund ; and a Republican candidate for Congress who met Winner during their at the NSA .
The fellow former NSA analyst , Jon Ivy , a Mandarin linguist , told The Intercept that Winner was known among her colleagues as one of the agency ’ s most talented analysts .
He recalled a co-worker praising her for not just “ actually understanding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but also understanding the context and the implications.
” During his campaign as a self-described “ progressive Republican ” in California ’ s 7th Congressional District — Ivy calls for ending post-9/11 wars ; bolstering voters ’ rights and election security ; and redirecting Pentagon spending to investments on infrastructure projects — he became a rare person who knew Winner professionally to speak out on her behalf .
“ She was trained , as we all are , to put the greater good above our own safety , ” Ivy wrote in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which also called for improving internal paths for whistleblowing in the intelligence community .
“ If someone trained in that way is facing a choice between doing what they believe is right and facing a possible death sentence — I don ’ t think they ’ ll shy away from the braver ( albeit criminal ) path.
” The clemency petition emphasizes the young veteran ’ s military service and says that Winner , who was diagnosed with bulimia when she was a young cryptolinguist working 12-hour shifts translating the intercepted communications of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ does not receive adequate medical treatment in prison for her eating disorder , depression , and anxiety .
The petition also says that , though her conviction is under the Espionage Act , Winner did not conspire against her country by working with a foreign agent , nor did she seek financial compensation for the information she sent to a media outlet with the intent that it become public knowledge .
“ The continued imprisonment of Reality Leigh Winner serves no social or preventative purpose , ” the petition says .
“ Her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protect the public , burdensome to her health and wellbeing , and not commensurate with the severity of her offense.
” Winner , who joined the military at age 18 and was 25 when she was arrested in 2017 , has already served about 30 months of her 63-month sentence .
She will serve nearly two more years before her December 30 , 2021 release .
The executive branch holds the power to grant clemency and pardons to people in federal prisons ; the petition refers to a favorable 2018 tweet from President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Winner ’ s record sentence for a media leak “ unfair ” for someone who is “ small potatoes ” compared to his 2016 campaign opponent Hillary Clinton , and criticized then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions for her harsh prosecution .
“ The president , as he has shown time and time again , can use this process however he sees fit , ” Grinter said , adding that she hopes he will “ pluck this out of the pile.
” And if the White House changes hands in January 2021 , Grinter added @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it .
”

On Monday, a Texas civil rights attorney launched a clemency petition for National Security Agency whistleblower Reality Winner in Dallas.
The attorney, Alison Grinter, encountered Winner through Crystal Mason, a Texas mother who served time alongside Winner in a Fort Worth federal prison after receiving a five-year sentence for “illegal voting” in the 2016 presidential election. Mason and Winner became friends in the facility’s newsroom, where they spent long hours watching TV news and debating current events.
After hearing about Winner from Mason, Grinter began corresponding with the whistleblower’s mother, Billie Winner-Davis, on Twitter. Last year, the two women drove hours across the state of Texas — Winner-Davis up from the panhandle, and Grinter down from Dallas — to meet at an Austin restaurant, where they spoke late into the night.
“It was incredible talking to her,” Winner-Davis said of Grinter, “because she had the same dream and vision that I had and the kind of passionate energy about it.”
Grinter pulled together a petition — signed by Winner and delivered to the Trump administration’s Office of the Pardon Attorney — that invokes the whistleblower’s military service; her health conditions and inadequate treatment behind bars; and the circumstances of her case. Winner, who was reported to have leaked an NSA document detailing attempted Russian cyberattacks against U.S. election systems, is serving the longest federal sentence ever given to a journalistic source under the Espionage Act, World War I-era legislation increasingly used in recent years to prosecute government insiders who share classified information with journalists.
“Our country was attacked by a hostile foreign power,” Grinter said at a Monday press conference in Dallas alongside Winner’s family. “Our national healing process cannot begin until we forgive our truth tellers and begin the job of rebuilding what was taken from us: election security, accountability for those who endeavor to undermine our democracy, and safeguarding the American right to government by and for the people. None of this can begin in earnest while we are still punishing those who tell us the truth.”
Winner was widely reported as the source for a June 2017 article in The Intercept on an NSA document that detailed phishing attacks by Russian military intelligence on local U.S. election officials. The Intercept received the document anonymously; The Intercept’s parent company, First Look Media, contributed to Winner’s legal fund through the Press Freedom Defense Fund after learning of her arrest.
“She was doing what anybody should have done if they had any kind of value in our country. She’s really a hero.”
Like Winner’s sentence, Mason’s penalty had also sparked widespread outrage. Mason, who was on supervised release from an earlier prison sentence, said she did not know she was ineligible to vote when she cast the provisional ballot that ended up never being counted. That new conviction for “illegal voting” sent her back to prison for violating the conditions of her release.
“We were both sitting up in here as a political prisoner,” Mason told The Intercept of the solidarity she felt with Winner. “She shouldn’t be in prison. She was doing what anybody should have done if they had any kind of value in our country,” said Mason. “She’s really a hero.”
In addition to the petition, Grinter will also send the Justice Department’s Office of the Pardon Attorney Winner’s Air Force commendation for “meritorious service” and some 4,500 letters of support — including ones from privacy and press freedom advocates; an Obama-era NSA whistleblower; Jim Risen and Kate Myers of the Press Freedom Defense Fund; and a Republican candidate for Congress who met Winner during their at the NSA.
The fellow former NSA analyst, Jon Ivy, a Mandarin linguist, told The Intercept that Winner was known among her colleagues as one of the agency’s most talented analysts. He recalled a co-worker praising her for not just “actually understanding the languages that she was dealing with, but also understanding the context and the implications.”
During his campaign as a self-described “progressive Republican” in California’s 7th Congressional District — Ivy calls for ending post-9/11 wars; bolstering voters’ rights and election security; and redirecting Pentagon spending to investments on infrastructure projects — he became a rare person who knew Winner professionally to speak out on her behalf.
“She was trained, as we all are, to put the greater good above our own safety,” Ivy wrote in a letter supporting clemency for Winner, which also called for improving internal paths for whistleblowing in the intelligence community. “If someone trained in that way is facing a choice between doing what they believe is right and facing a possible death sentence — I don’t think they’ll shy away from the braver (albeit criminal) path.”
The clemency petition emphasizes the young veteran’s military service and says that Winner, who was diagnosed with bulimia when she was a young cryptolinguist working 12-hour shifts translating the intercepted communications of terror suspects in the drone program, does not receive adequate medical treatment in prison for her eating disorder, depression, and anxiety. The petition also says that, though her conviction is under the Espionage Act, Winner did not conspire against her country by working with a foreign agent, nor did she seek financial compensation for the information she sent to a media outlet with the intent that it become public knowledge.
“The continued imprisonment of Reality Leigh Winner serves no social or preventative purpose,” the petition says. “Her continued incarceration is costly. unnecessary to protect the public, burdensome to her health and wellbeing, and not commensurate with the severity of her offense.”
Winner, who joined the military at age 18 and was 25 when she was arrested in 2017, has already served about 30 months of her 63-month sentence. She will serve nearly two more years before her December 30, 2021 release.
The executive branch holds the power to grant clemency and pardons to people in federal prisons; the petition refers to a favorable 2018 tweet from President Donald Trump, who in 2018 called Winner’s record sentence for a media leak “unfair” for someone who is “small potatoes” compared to his 2016 campaign opponent Hillary Clinton, and criticized then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions for her harsh prosecution.
“The president, as he has shown time and time again, can use this process however he sees fit,” Grinter said, adding that she hopes he will “pluck this out of the pile.”
And if the White House changes hands in January 2021, Grinter added, “I’ll certainly resend it.”


theintercept--2020-02-17--Bloomberg Apologized for Stop-and-Frisk. Why Won’t He Say Sorry to Muslims for Spying on Them?

I can not help but ask : Have these elected Democrats lost their minds ?
Have Democratic voters in , say , Florida , where Bloomberg is now leading in the polls , taken leave of their senses ?
Today , the billionaire media mogul is polling third in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination and has secured endorsements from dozens of high-profile Democratic mayors and members of Congress .
In 2016 , Republican presidential candidates were openly fantasizing about surveilling and spying on Muslims .
Yet just a few years earlier , in the nation ’ s biggest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in going beyond mere rhetoric : Michael Bloomberg oversaw the mass warrantless , suspicionless surveillance of Muslim New Yorkers , as the New York Police Department “ mapped ” where they prayed , ate , studied , and worked .
The 2016 Republican presidential primaries were a living nightmare for Muslim Americans .
From start to finish , GOP candidates fell over one another to fan the flames of anti-Muslim bigotry , anti-Arab racism , and Islamophobic hysteria .
We all recall , of course , Donald J. Trump calling for “ a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the United States until our country ’ s representatives can figure out what the hell is going on.
” But do you also remember Trump saying that he would “ strongly consider ” closing mosques and setting up a database for all Muslims in the United States ?
How about Sen. Ted Cruz ’ s pledge to “ patrol and secure Muslim neighborhoods , ” or Sen. Marco Rubio ’ s plan to shut down Muslim cafes and diners ?
“ If I have to monitor a mosque , I ’ ll monitor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Graham .
In recent weeks , much has been made of Bloomberg ’ s support for racist and unconstitutional stop-and-frisk practices , which targeted and terrorized African American New Yorkers .
Much less has been made of his support for racist and unconstitutional surveillance practices , which targeted and terrorized Muslim New Yorkers .
Why is that ?
How to explain the shameful silence ?
Could it be because Islamophobia , as I have pointed out before , still isn ’ t taken seriously by the mainstream media , as well as many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ maybe because billionaire Bloomberg has paid prominent liberal groups to turn a blind eye to his Islamophobic record ?
After all , that record is pretty indisputable .
Much of the damning evidence against Bloomberg and the NYPD was amassed and documented by the Associated Press in a wide-ranging , Pulitzer Prize-winning , and devastating series of articles published in 2011 .
During Bloomberg ’ s three-term tenure as mayor of New York , the NYPD worked with the CIA to deploy teams of undercover agents , known as “ rakers , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ They ’ ve monitored daily life in bookstores , bars , cafes and nightclubs , ” reported the AP .
“ Police have also used informants , known as ‘ mosque crawlers , ’ to monitor sermons , even when there ’ s no evidence of wrongdoing .
NYPD officials have scrutinized imams and gathered intelligence on cab drivers and food cart vendors , jobs often done by Muslims.
” The AP also noted that on one occasion officials “ even sent an undercover agent on a whitewater rafting trip , where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in police intelligence files how many times they prayed.
” The NYPD , added the New York Times , “ eavesdropped on thousands of conversations between Muslims in restaurants and stores in New York City and New Jersey and on Long Island.
” Paid informants were “ under orders to ‘ bait ’ Muslims into saying inflammatory things.
” In 2015 , a federal court ruling compared the ethnic profiling and covert surveillance of Muslim communities living in Bloomberg ’ s New York to the discrimination faced by “ Jewish Americans during the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rights movement , and Japanese-Americans during World War II.
” As with stop-and-frisk , Bloomberg defended surveillance as a vital crimefighting measure .
“ We have to keep this country safe , ” he declared in 2012 — despite the fact that the surveillance of Muslims in New York produced “ not one actionable piece of intelligence , ” as even NYPD Police Commissioner Bill Bratton later admitted .
Yet on stop-and-frisk , Bloomberg has since apologized , telling a black church last November , “ I want you to know that I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Last week , he apologized again to African American communities , saying that he had failed to “ understand then the unintended pain it was causing to young black and brown families and their kids.
” Whether we accept or even believe Bloomberg ’ s half-hearted and belated apology for stop-and-frisk , at least he felt the need to offer one .
But what about his warrantless surveillance of Muslims ?
What of the pain caused to young Muslim families and their kids ?
There has been no apology , no regret , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turned presidential candidate for his role in what has been described by civil rights activists as “ one of the most chilling campaigns against religious liberty in modern American history.
” Nor does Bloomberg ’ s wider record on Muslims and Islam inspire much confidence .
Yes , he defended the construction of a controversial Muslim community center in lower Manhattan ; yes , he has criticized Trump ’ s Muslim ban .
But the former Republican mayor has also referred to the “ crazy Islamic world ” while heaping praise on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government on earth right now .
There are multiple tweets from Bloomberg praising the Chinese Communists for their record on climate change ; zero tweets condemning their mass detention of the Uighur Muslims .
But back to surveillance : In recent days , with the emergence of audio recordings of Bloomberg making racist remarks and the renewed debate over stop-and-frisk , a number of public figures and activists have declared that they can not bring themselves to vote for Bloomberg if he is the Democratic candidate against Trump .
The Muslim American angle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sunday , Asad Dandia , a young Islamic studies graduate from Brooklyn who was a victim of the NYPD surveillance program , tweeted about the “ enormous mental and emotional stress ” that it caused to him and his family and called Bloomberg a “ monster .
”

Photo: Bebeto Matthews/AP
The 2016 Republican presidential primaries were a living nightmare for Muslim Americans. From start to finish, GOP candidates fell over one another to fan the flames of anti-Muslim bigotry, anti-Arab racism, and Islamophobic hysteria. We all recall, of course, Donald J. Trump calling for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what the hell is going on.” But do you also remember Trump saying that he would “strongly consider” closing mosques and setting up a database for all Muslims in the United States? How about Sen. Ted Cruz’s pledge to “patrol and secure Muslim neighborhoods,” or Sen. Marco Rubio’s plan to shut down Muslim cafes and diners? “If I have to monitor a mosque, I’ll monitor a mosque,” proclaimed Sen. Lindsey Graham.
In 2016, Republican presidential candidates were openly fantasizing about surveilling and spying on Muslims. Yet just a few years earlier, in the nation’s biggest city, a Republican mayor had succeeded in going beyond mere rhetoric: Michael Bloomberg oversaw the mass warrantless, suspicionless surveillance of Muslim New Yorkers, as the New York Police Department “mapped” where they prayed, ate, studied, and worked.
Today, the billionaire media mogul is polling third in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination and has secured endorsements from dozens of high-profile Democratic mayors and members of Congress.
I cannot help but ask: Have these elected Democrats lost their minds? Have Democratic voters in, say, Florida, where Bloomberg is now leading in the polls, taken leave of their senses?
In recent weeks, much has been made of Bloomberg’s support for racist and unconstitutional stop-and-frisk practices, which targeted and terrorized African American New Yorkers. Much less has been made of his support for racist and unconstitutional surveillance practices, which targeted and terrorized Muslim New Yorkers. Why is that? How to explain the shameful silence? Could it be because Islamophobia, as I have pointed out before, still isn’t taken seriously by the mainstream media, as well as many liberals and Democrats? Or is it maybe because billionaire Bloomberg has paid prominent liberal groups to turn a blind eye to his Islamophobic record?
After all, that record is pretty indisputable. Much of the damning evidence against Bloomberg and the NYPD was amassed and documented by the Associated Press in a wide-ranging, Pulitzer Prize-winning, and devastating series of articles published in 2011.
During Bloomberg’s three-term tenure as mayor of New York, the NYPD worked with the CIA to deploy teams of undercover agents, known as “rakers,” into Muslim neighborhoods to gather information. “They’ve monitored daily life in bookstores, bars, cafes and nightclubs,” reported the AP. “Police have also used informants, known as ‘mosque crawlers,’ to monitor sermons, even when there’s no evidence of wrongdoing. NYPD officials have scrutinized imams and gathered intelligence on cab drivers and food cart vendors, jobs often done by Muslims.” The AP also noted that on one occasion officials “even sent an undercover agent on a whitewater rafting trip, where he recorded students’ names and noted in police intelligence files how many times they prayed.”
The NYPD, added the New York Times, “eavesdropped on thousands of conversations between Muslims in restaurants and stores in New York City and New Jersey and on Long Island.” Paid informants were “under orders to ‘bait’ Muslims into saying inflammatory things.”
In 2015, a federal court ruling compared the ethnic profiling and covert surveillance of Muslim communities living in Bloomberg’s New York to the discrimination faced by “Jewish Americans during the Red Scare, African-Americans during the Civil Rights movement, and Japanese-Americans during World War II.”
As with stop-and-frisk, Bloomberg defended surveillance as a vital crimefighting measure. “We have to keep this country safe,” he declared in 2012 — despite the fact that the surveillance of Muslims in New York produced “not one actionable piece of intelligence,” as even NYPD Police Commissioner Bill Bratton later admitted.
Yet on stop-and-frisk, Bloomberg has since apologized, telling a black church last November, “I want you to know that I realize back then I was wrong.” Last week, he apologized again to African American communities, saying that he had failed to “understand then the unintended pain it was causing to young black and brown families and their kids.” Whether we accept or even believe Bloomberg’s half-hearted and belated apology for stop-and-frisk, at least he felt the need to offer one.
But what about his warrantless surveillance of Muslims? What of the pain caused to young Muslim families and their kids? There has been no apology, no regret, no contrition whatsoever from the former mayor turned presidential candidate for his role in what has been described by civil rights activists as “one of the most chilling campaigns against religious liberty in modern American history.”
Nor does Bloomberg’s wider record on Muslims and Islam inspire much confidence. Yes, he defended the construction of a controversial Muslim community center in lower Manhattan; yes, he has criticized Trump’s Muslim ban. But the former Republican mayor has also referred to the “crazy Islamic world” while heaping praise on the Chinese dictatorship, perhaps the most Islamophobic government on earth right now. There are multiple tweets from Bloomberg praising the Chinese Communists for their record on climate change; zero tweets condemning their mass detention of the Uighur Muslims.
But back to surveillance: In recent days, with the emergence of audio recordings of Bloomberg making racist remarks and the renewed debate over stop-and-frisk, a number of public figures and activists have declared that they cannot bring themselves to vote for Bloomberg if he is the Democratic candidate against Trump. The Muslim American angle is important to consider here: On Sunday, Asad Dandia, a young Islamic studies graduate from Brooklyn who was a victim of the NYPD surveillance program, tweeted about the “enormous mental and emotional stress” that it caused to him and his family and called Bloomberg a “monster.”
Bloomberg terrorized me and my people. His surveillance brought enormous mental and emotional stress to my parents, who *still* ask me to vet any new friends. Like my brother Raf, I will never shame folks for refusing to vote for that monster. I may even join them in abstaining. https://t.co/itRXU4vUF8 — Asad ??? ?? (@AsadFromNYC) February 16, 2020
But isn’t Trump worse than Bloomberg? The greater evil? Of course he is. It’s worth noting, however, that the former Republican mayor’s surveillance of Muslims in New York earned the praise and admiration of one particular Republican presidential candidate during the 2016 GOP primaries.
“You’re going to have to watch and study the mosques, because a lot of talk is going on at the mosques,” candidate Trump told MSNBC. “And from what I heard, in the old days … we had great surveillance going on in and around mosques in New York City.”
To be clear: Bloomberg spied on Muslim Americans. Trump praised him for it. And now, some Democrats want Bloomberg to defeat and replace Trump in November.
So I ask again: Have they lost their minds?


theintercept--2020-02-18--Here’s Mike Bloomberg’s Soon-to-Be-Released Higher Education Plan

The plan also includes an apprenticeship proposal that is geared to the private industry , which is likely to anger union leaders .
The plan also goes backward in some places and would also slash the benefits borrowers receive under an income-driven student loan repayment program , capping the amount that can be forgiven after 20 years for people in income-driven repayment plans .
Currently , there is no cap .
Billionaire Mike Bloomberg ’ s presidential campaign is planning to release a higher education plan on Tuesday that pledges to make community college free , increase subsidies for low-income @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legacy admissions — but falls far short of what much of the Democratic pack has so far laid out on the campaign trail .
The Bloomberg plan is scheduled for public release at 9 a.m. on Tuesday but was leaked to a rival campaign by multiple Bloomberg staffers , which then provided it to The Intercept .
( Bloomberg may be able to hire thousands of party operatives , but he apparently can ’ t buy all of their loyalty . )
The Bloomberg forgiveness provision , instead of wiping out all remaining @ @ @ @ @ @ @ income-driven repayments , as is current law , would cap the amount that would qualify for forgiveness at $ 57,000 .
This would leave many borrowers in income-driven repayment plans with just as much debt or more than what they first started with .
Though his plan also reduces the monthly repayment amount to 5 percent of discretionary income , down from the current 10 percent , it ’ s still significantly less generous than current law to a significant portion of the estimated 8 million borrowers who rely on income-based repayment plans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Out of the current Democratic primary field , only Sens .
Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are proposing to eliminate student loan debt , which currently burdens more than 44 million Americans .
Sanders ’ s universal plan goes the furthest on the issue , vowing to cancel every last dollar of student debt .
Warren ’ s means-tested plan , meanwhile , would offer no debt forgiveness for those making more than $ 250,000 a year and would cap the amount forgiven at $ 50,000 per person , regardless of income .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ by executive action , which wouldn ’ t require congressional approval .
Another plank of the oligarch ’ s higher education plan commits to tripling direct federal Title III funding to historically black colleges and universities , Hispanic-serving institutions , and other minority-serving institutions .
But that increase amounts to just $ 7.5 billion over 10 years , while former Vice President Joe Biden , for instance , has proposed $ 70 billion in that sort of funding , and Sanders has pushed for $ 50 billion .
Despite the promise of additional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rankle HBCUs .
When the Obama administration made a similar proposal around free community college , HBCU leaders warned that the alternative would likely be taken by a substantial number of students who ’ d otherwise have gone to an HBCU , devastating enrollment .
Biden ’ s plan covers community college or provides full grants for two years at an HBCU or equivalent HSI .
The most Bloombergian element of the plan , however , involves the former mayor ’ s focus on pushing colleges and universities to meld their curriculum with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a close pairing of college with corporate training and internships .
As the plan lays out :

Billionaire Mike Bloomberg’s presidential campaign is planning to release a higher education plan on Tuesday that pledges to make community college free, increase subsidies for low-income students, and end the practice of legacy admissions — but falls far short of what much of the Democratic pack has so far laid out on the campaign trail.
The plan also goes backward in some places and would also slash the benefits borrowers receive under an income-driven student loan repayment program, capping the amount that can be forgiven after 20 years for people in income-driven repayment plans. Currently, there is no cap.
The plan also includes an apprenticeship proposal that is geared to the private industry, which is likely to anger union leaders.
The Bloomberg plan is scheduled for public release at 9 a.m. on Tuesday but was leaked to a rival campaign by multiple Bloomberg staffers, which then provided it to The Intercept. (Bloomberg may be able to hire thousands of party operatives, but he apparently can’t buy all of their loyalty.)
The Bloomberg forgiveness provision, instead of wiping out all remaining federal student loans after 20 years of income-driven repayments, as is current law, would cap the amount that would qualify for forgiveness at $57,000. This would leave many borrowers in income-driven repayment plans with just as much debt or more than what they first started with. Though his plan also reduces the monthly repayment amount to 5 percent of discretionary income, down from the current 10 percent, it’s still significantly less generous than current law to a significant portion of the estimated 8 million borrowers who rely on income-based repayment plans to pay off their student loans.
Out of the current Democratic primary field, only Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are proposing to eliminate student loan debt, which currently burdens more than 44 million Americans. Sanders’s universal plan goes the furthest on the issue, vowing to cancel every last dollar of student debt. Warren’s means-tested plan, meanwhile, would offer no debt forgiveness for those making more than $250,000 a year and would cap the amount forgiven at $50,000 per person, regardless of income. Warren has pledged to implement her plan by executive action, which wouldn’t require congressional approval.
Another plank of the oligarch’s higher education plan commits to tripling direct federal Title III funding to historically black colleges and universities, Hispanic-serving institutions, and other minority-serving institutions. But that increase amounts to just $7.5 billion over 10 years, while former Vice President Joe Biden, for instance, has proposed $70 billion in that sort of funding, and Sanders has pushed for $50 billion.
Despite the promise of additional funds, Bloomberg’s plan may rankle HBCUs. When the Obama administration made a similar proposal around free community college, HBCU leaders warned that the alternative would likely be taken by a substantial number of students who’d otherwise have gone to an HBCU, devastating enrollment. Biden’s plan covers community college or provides full grants for two years at an HBCU or equivalent HSI.
The most Bloombergian element of the plan, however, involves the former mayor’s focus on pushing colleges and universities to meld their curriculum with various industries’ workforce needs and envisions a close pairing of college with corporate training and internships. As the plan lays out: