theintercept--2020-01-09--Progressive Coalition Makes the Case for Unity in the Democratic Primary

debates , Sens .
Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren make a formidable team , deflecting attacks and amplifying criticisms of the more business-as-usual candidates .
Off the stage , they avoid publicly disparaging each other , and their campaign staffers , with some notable exceptions , tend to do the same .
Much has been made of this informal “ non-aggression pact ” between the pair , but as the Iowa caucus on February 3 approaches , some activists are beginning to ask how long this ( relative ) peace can last .
Two progressive candidates may be better than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might not be at the voting booth — where Sanders and Warren will inevitably split the electorate ’ s share of left-wing Democrats , preventing either from emerging as a dominant frontrunner .
“ We can not sit on the sidelines as we watch this primary play out and allow a neoliberal be elected , ” said Ana María Archila , co-president of Center for Popular Democracy Action , explaining CPDA ’ s endorsement of Sanders in December .
“ If we stay divided , the corporate Democrats will pick the nominee.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Affairs magazine and a Sanders supporter who has repeatedly made the case for harsher criticism of Warren , made a similar point : “ Bernie represents a historic opportunity that must not be missed .
If people sit on the fence for it , Biden may very well win this primary.
” The same fear has inspired another group of progressive leaders to adopt a different tack , however .
Democracy for America , the grassroots progressive group founded by Howard Dean in 2004 and which endorsed Sanders in 2016 , told The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the first set of primaries .
The goal , instead , is to make sure one of the two wins .
“ We see two extremely powerful and talented candidates that are both running excellent campaigns , ” DFA Executive Director Charles Chamberlain said .
Chamberlain pointed to the overlap in the two candidate ’ s goals on health care , a Green New Deal , and taxing the wealthy .
Instead of picking sides , Chamberlain and DFA are planning to launch a coalition united by the shared goal of “ defeating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” and electing a progressive president — that is , either Sanders or Warren .
It ’ s not a dual endorsement — DFA says they may endorse one or the other candidate down the line — but rather , the coalition will serve as a space where left activists and organizations can work together to maximize the number of delegates captured by Sanders and Warren ( collectively ) and simultaneously continue building the goodwill and solidarity that will be necessary when progressive voters do eventually have to unite behind a single candidate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is to make unity possible down the line , ” said David Segal , a progressive strategist and former Rhode Island state representative , “ but it ’ s also to plant a flag in the ground and say to the media and the Democratic establishment : We plan to win .
If Warren and Sanders together have a democratic mandate come convention , one of them is going to be president .
That ’ s not negotiable.
” Another priority for the initiative will be to ensure the delegates recruited to represent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ candidate enters the nominating convention with a majority of delegates , there will be an opportunity for delegates to shift from one candidate to another .
“ We want Bernie delegates who are ready to support Warren as their second choice , ” Chamberlain said .
“ And we have to have Warren supporters who are ready to go to Bernie at an open convention.
” Once chosen , Chamberlain and Segal envision meet-ups for Sanders and Warren delegates to get to know each other and ( hopefully ) recognize their common goals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ DFA and its partners plan to educate voters about strategic caucusing to maximize the two candidates ’ delegate haul .
Steve Cobble , a progressive activist who was delegate director for Jesse Jackson ’ s 1988 campaign , explained how this works .
“ If you ’ re a Warren supporter and she doesn ’ t meet the 15 percent threshold to be viable in your caucus site , ” Cobble said , “ you need to move over to Bernie on your second ballot.
” In 2008 , Cobble was responsible for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supporters to back Barack Obama on their second ballot — a decision that likely netted the future president a few extra delegates in his tight nominating contest with Hillary Clinton .
For DFA , the unity approach arises out of strategic and organizational necessity .
“ Together , Warren and Sanders are supported by a supermajority of our members , ” Chamberlain said .
But those members are , for the moment , split about 50-50 between the two .
The Working Families Party , which endorsed Warren in September , faced backlash @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The ensuing dispute over its endorsement process — which involved balancing the input of grassroots members and a board of elected chapter leaders — ignited hostilities between Warren and Sanders supporters and damaged the WFP ’ s credibility with some activists .
DFA may be hoping to avoid the same outcome .
WFP communications director Joe Dinkin expressed sympathy for the unity message .
“ We ’ re with Warren , but both Warren and Sanders are giants of the progressive movement , ” Dinkin said , “ and they ’ re both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bringing new people into the fold .
Half a dozen candidates are crowding the pro-corporate lane of the Democratic primary .
It ’ s chaos .
Progressives are lucky to have two strong , viable , and popular candidates in the race that are fighting to make America work for the many , not just the few.
” When WFP endorsed Warren , they had hoped to inspire other groups to enter the fray .
But the strong backlash may have discouraged more early endorsements .
For the most part , unions have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But waiting until an obvious frontrunner emerges to invest resources into the race risks allowing a moderate like Biden to consolidate his power uncontested .
That risk is what inspired Archila and CPDA to endorse Sanders .
“ We have a short window to make candidates of the left seem viable , ” Archila said , “ and to the extent that organizations representing workers and poor people and people of color sit it out , it ’ s going to hurt us.
” Like WFP ’ s Dinkin , however , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s endorsement is not intended to “ disparage ” Warren .
As she sees it , the choice between staying neutral and going nuclear is a false choice — and a destructive one .
“ I do not abide by the idea that we should destroy our closest ally based on our differences , when we have so many goals in common , ” she said .
For the time being , Archila agrees with DFA that having both candidates in the race is good for the movement .
“ What we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to stay on the debate stage for as long as possible so they can continue to define the contours of the conversation and together paint a picture of the country that is in deep contrast with Trump ’ s exclusionary , racist vision of America , ” she said .
Unlike journalists , activists , and Twitter warriors , she said , many voters are just tuning in to the primary .
When they turn on their TVs , she wants them to see two candidates making the case for Medicare for All @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Otherwise , she fears the left ’ s ideas will be “ marginalized ” on a stage full of centrists .
And indeed , the only place where real hostility between the Sanders and Warren camps appears to exist is online .
“ We did a lot of phone calls , meetings , and process to arrive at our endorsement , ” Archila said , “ and at no point did our people go ‘ The other candidate is horrendous !
’ ” Rather , she says , most were very enthusiastic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was , ‘ They both speak to us !
How exciting !
’ ” Other progressives see a similar trend .
“ There are way more people than it might seem who feel good about both candidates , ” said DFA communications director Neil Sroka .
“ That ’ s the silent majority among progressives.
” The unity coalition aims to maintain and cultivate that goodwill .
Warren supporters are unlikely to enthusiastically join a Sanders campaign perceived as hostile to their candidate , and vice versa .
Without cooperation , progressive leaders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ destruction .
In an email message to DFA members in December , Chamberlain warned that if supporters of Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders “ wage war on each other … [ it ] will take both of them down.
” The point , Chamberlain told me , was this : “ Let ’ s save our firepower for the corporate wing.
” The effort also aims to address an obstacle that is a problem for Sanders in particular .
The party power brokers have made no secret that they will do all they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which means that if he comes to the convention under a majority , and doesn ’ t have Warren delegates to lift him over the top , the party brass will unify around a different candidate .
In the spring of 1988 , when it briefly looked like Jackson may have been able to arrive at the convention as the delegate leader , party bosses began putting together their own “ Stop Jesse ” plan that involved nominating Mario Cuomo on the convention floor .
In 1976 , Jimmy Carter came into a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the delegates , but was able to claim the nomination .
Forty percent might have been enough for Carter , but it wouldn ’ t have been for Jackson , and it won ’ t be for Sanders .
“ In the Jackson ’ 88 campaign , we operated on the theory that a delegate who was not explicitly for Jesse would end up supporting his last remaining opponent , ” said Cobble .
“ Bernie could possibly avoid that scenario with the help of other progressive Warren delegates.
” Robinson , of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s important to avoid creating “ so much animosity between the two camps that it becomes impossible to unify the left.
” However , he sees a problem with being too coy about our differences .
“ Bernie might not want to criticize Warren directly , but he should certainly draw contrasts , ” Robinson said , and he should be more willing to explain why he ’ s the better candidate .
And as for Bernie supporters like him , “ I think it ’ s important to actually criticize things about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her whole method.
” Bernie needs to take a more commanding lead over Biden and , Robinson said , “ The obvious way to do that is to take those people whose first choice is Warren and second choice is Bernie and flip them.
” David Segal maintains that Sanders is better off continuing to go after Biden voters .
“ Bernie ’ s recent tactic of drawing a more explicit contrast with Biden makes sense because Biden ’ s support is relatively soft — very few of his voters are enthusiastic about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ numbers , it ’ s where the greatest number of second-choice Bernie supporters lie.
” Meanwhile , Segal explained , hitting Biden serves the cause of unity .
“ The progressives who make up pluralities of the Sanders and Warren bases are generally unified in their critique of Biden .
It ’ s a signal that they are all on the same team.
” In other words , there are fewer votes to be had in attacking Warren , and it risks polarizing the more committed base of her supporters .
“ There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaigns to attack each other , ” Segal said .
in horserace coverage of the primary that Warren and Sanders are competing for the same voters ; if one rises in the polls , the other drops .
But that ’ s only partially true .
Thirty-one percent of Sanders supporters pick Warren as their second choice , but 29 percent pick Joe Biden and another 9 percent pick Andrew Yang .
Similarly , 32 percent of Warren voters pick Sanders as their second choice , but 22 percent pick Biden and 11 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dropped out tomorrow , Bernie would gain some voters , but so would his moderate competitors .
For instance , with Sanders polling at 20 percent and Warren at 14 in the Real Clear Politics average , Sanders would pick up about 5 percentage points if Warren dropped out , while Biden , who is at 30 percent , would pick up 3 and Buttigieg 2 , the rest dispersed .
Yes , Bernie gains , but Biden continues his climb toward 50 percent .
Meanwhile , without Warren in the race , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who trend older and whiter , would be more likely to drift to Biden than Sanders , meaning that Biden would continue to pull away , unless Sanders could find a way to reverse that dynamic .
According to Morning Consult , Biden is the second choice of the most Buttigieg supporters , at 27 percent , followed by Warren at 20 and Sanders at 12 percent .
So if both Warren and Sanders stay in the race , the left rises if Buttigieg falls .
If only Sanders is in the race @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fall significantly relative to Biden .
Robinson argued that such logic only meant that Sanders supporters should hope that Buttigieg stays in as long as possible , not that Warren staying in is good ( “ It mainly makes me want to donate to Mayor Pete , ” Robinson quipped ) .
But if Sanders , Biden , and Buttigieg all arrive at the convention splitting delegates three ways , it ’ s hard to see that contest tilting toward Sanders and not one of the moderates .
Getting to 2,000 delegates — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for any single candidate , said Larry Cohen , former president of the Communications Workers of America and current chair of Our Revolution , the nonprofit political organization founded by Sanders after his 2016 presidential run .
“ It ’ s a Venn diagram .
Not a circle , ” Cohen said .
Given the power and money behind the establishment wing of the party , Cohen sees unity as the only path to victory for the left .
“ The math to 2,000 , unless Biden totally melts , is tortured .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ is getting 2,000.
” Having both Sanders and Warren in the race turning out their respective bases and winning delegates may be the likeliest path to a progressive majority at the convention .
For Cohen , who personally supports Sanders and served as the campaign ’ s liaison to organized labor in 2016 , a unity message is not just about singing “ kumbaya ” and getting along : “ It ’ s not just that we need progressive unity ; that ’ s a nice idea .
But this is more than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s a very good chance those delegates will have to stick together .
Not just on other issues , like the platform , but to nominate the president.
” How would that work ?
Well , as Cohen sees it , they can ’ t wait for a second ballot at the convention .
Even if every Sanders delegate moves to Warren or vice versa , the corporate wing will have a chance to consolidate around one candidate , now with the help of an additional 750 nonelected delegates ( aka super @ @ @ @ @ @ @ progressives could enter the convention with a majority of elected delegates and leave with Joe Biden as the nominee .
“ It would be insane for Warren and Sanders supporters to allow that to happen , ” said Cohen .
Instead , consolidation has to come before the convention — the old fashioned way : “ One of them drops out , and they make a deal.
” Just not yet .

On stage at debates, Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren make a formidable team, deflecting attacks and amplifying criticisms of the more business-as-usual candidates. Off the stage, they avoid publicly disparaging each other, and their campaign staffers, with some notable exceptions, tend to do the same. Much has been made of this informal “non-aggression pact” between the pair, but as the Iowa caucus on February 3 approaches, some activists are beginning to ask how long this (relative) peace can last. Two progressive candidates may be better than one on debate night, but it might not be at the voting booth — where Sanders and Warren will inevitably split the electorate’s share of left-wing Democrats, preventing either from emerging as a dominant frontrunner.
“We cannot sit on the sidelines as we watch this primary play out and allow a neoliberal be elected,” said Ana María Archila, co-president of Center for Popular Democracy Action, explaining CPDA’s endorsement of Sanders in December. “If we stay divided, the corporate Democrats will pick the nominee.” Nathan J. Robinson, editor of Current Affairs magazine and a Sanders supporter who has repeatedly made the case for harsher criticism of Warren, made a similar point: “Bernie represents a historic opportunity that must not be missed. If people sit on the fence for it, Biden may very well win this primary.”
The same fear has inspired another group of progressive leaders to adopt a different tack, however. Democracy for America, the grassroots progressive group founded by Howard Dean in 2004 and which endorsed Sanders in 2016, told The Intercept they will decline to endorse before the first set of primaries. The goal, instead, is to make sure one of the two wins. “We see two extremely powerful and talented candidates that are both running excellent campaigns,” DFA Executive Director Charles Chamberlain said. Chamberlain pointed to the overlap in the two candidate’s goals on health care, a Green New Deal, and taxing the wealthy. Instead of picking sides, Chamberlain and DFA are planning to launch a coalition united by the shared goal of “defeating the corporate wing of the Democratic Party” and electing a progressive president — that is, either Sanders or Warren.
It’s not a dual endorsement — DFA says they may endorse one or the other candidate down the line — but rather, the coalition will serve as a space where left activists and organizations can work together to maximize the number of delegates captured by Sanders and Warren (collectively) and simultaneously continue building the goodwill and solidarity that will be necessary when progressive voters do eventually have to unite behind a single candidate.
“The purpose of this coalition is to make unity possible down the line,” said David Segal, a progressive strategist and former Rhode Island state representative, “but it’s also to plant a flag in the ground and say to the media and the Democratic establishment: We plan to win. If Warren and Sanders together have a democratic mandate come convention, one of them is going to be president. That’s not negotiable.”
Another priority for the initiative will be to ensure the delegates recruited to represent the candidates are unity-minded. If no candidate enters the nominating convention with a majority of delegates, there will be an opportunity for delegates to shift from one candidate to another. “We want Bernie delegates who are ready to support Warren as their second choice,” Chamberlain said. “And we have to have Warren supporters who are ready to go to Bernie at an open convention.” Once chosen, Chamberlain and Segal envision meet-ups for Sanders and Warren delegates to get to know each other and (hopefully) recognize their common goals.
Having both Sanders and Warren in the race winning delegates, some argue, may be the likeliest path to a progressive majority at the convention.
On the ground in Iowa, DFA and its partners plan to educate voters about strategic caucusing to maximize the two candidates’ delegate haul. Steve Cobble, a progressive activist who was delegate director for Jesse Jackson’s 1988 campaign, explained how this works. “If you’re a Warren supporter and she doesn’t meet the 15 percent threshold to be viable in your caucus site,” Cobble said, “you need to move over to Bernie on your second ballot.” In 2008, Cobble was responsible for convincing candidate Dennis Kucinich to tell his supporters to back Barack Obama on their second ballot — a decision that likely netted the future president a few extra delegates in his tight nominating contest with Hillary Clinton.
For DFA, the unity approach arises out of strategic and organizational necessity. “Together, Warren and Sanders are supported by a supermajority of our members,” Chamberlain said. But those members are, for the moment, split about 50-50 between the two. The Working Families Party, which endorsed Warren in September, faced backlash from Sanders supporters among its membership. The ensuing dispute over its endorsement process — which involved balancing the input of grassroots members and a board of elected chapter leaders — ignited hostilities between Warren and Sanders supporters and damaged the WFP’s credibility with some activists. DFA may be hoping to avoid the same outcome.
WFP communications director Joe Dinkin expressed sympathy for the unity message. “We’re with Warren, but both Warren and Sanders are giants of the progressive movement,” Dinkin said, “and they’re both building the strength of that movement and bringing new people into the fold. Half a dozen candidates are crowding the pro-corporate lane of the Democratic primary. It’s chaos. Progressives are lucky to have two strong, viable, and popular candidates in the race that are fighting to make America work for the many, not just the few.”
When WFP endorsed Warren, they had hoped to inspire other groups to enter the fray. But the strong backlash may have discouraged more early endorsements. For the most part, unions have stayed out of the race as well. But waiting until an obvious frontrunner emerges to invest resources into the race risks allowing a moderate like Biden to consolidate his power uncontested.
“I do not abide by the idea that we should destroy our closest ally based on our differences, when we have so many goals in common,” Archila said.
That risk is what inspired Archila and CPDA to endorse Sanders. “We have a short window to make candidates of the left seem viable,” Archila said, “and to the extent that organizations representing workers and poor people and people of color sit it out, it’s going to hurt us.” Like WFP’s Dinkin, however, she praised both candidates and insisted CPDA’s endorsement is not intended to “disparage” Warren. As she sees it, the choice between staying neutral and going nuclear is a false choice — and a destructive one. “I do not abide by the idea that we should destroy our closest ally based on our differences, when we have so many goals in common,” she said.
For the time being, Archila agrees with DFA that having both candidates in the race is good for the movement. “What we need is for both Sanders and Warren to stay on the debate stage for as long as possible so they can continue to define the contours of the conversation and together paint a picture of the country that is in deep contrast with Trump’s exclusionary, racist vision of America,” she said. Unlike journalists, activists, and Twitter warriors, she said, many voters are just tuning in to the primary. When they turn on their TVs, she wants them to see two candidates making the case for Medicare for All, ending deportation, and guaranteed housing. Otherwise, she fears the left’s ideas will be “marginalized” on a stage full of centrists.
And indeed, the only place where real hostility between the Sanders and Warren camps appears to exist is online. “We did a lot of phone calls, meetings, and process to arrive at our endorsement,” Archila said, “and at no point did our people go ‘The other candidate is horrendous!’” Rather, she says, most were very enthusiastic about Warren. “What we heard was, ‘They both speak to us! How exciting!’”
Other progressives see a similar trend. “There are way more people than it might seem who feel good about both candidates,” said DFA communications director Neil Sroka. “That’s the silent majority among progressives.” The unity coalition aims to maintain and cultivate that goodwill. Warren supporters are unlikely to enthusiastically join a Sanders campaign perceived as hostile to their candidate, and vice versa. Without cooperation, progressive leaders fear a circular firing squad and mutual destruction. In an email message to DFA members in December, Chamberlain warned that if supporters of Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders “wage war on each other … [it] will take both of them down.” The point, Chamberlain told me, was this: “Let’s save our firepower for the corporate wing.”
The effort also aims to address an obstacle that is a problem for Sanders in particular. The party power brokers have made no secret that they will do all they can to stop a Sanders nomination, which means that if he comes to the convention under a majority, and doesn’t have Warren delegates to lift him over the top, the party brass will unify around a different candidate. In the spring of 1988, when it briefly looked like Jackson may have been able to arrive at the convention as the delegate leader, party bosses began putting together their own “Stop Jesse” plan that involved nominating Mario Cuomo on the convention floor. In 1976, Jimmy Carter came into a divided convention with roughly 40 percent of the delegates, but was able to claim the nomination. Forty percent might have been enough for Carter, but it wouldn’t have been for Jackson, and it won’t be for Sanders.
“In the Jackson ’88 campaign, we operated on the theory that a delegate who was not explicitly for Jesse would end up supporting his last remaining opponent,” said Cobble. “Bernie could possibly avoid that scenario with the help of other progressive Warren delegates.”
Robinson, of Current Affairs, agreed that it’s important to avoid creating “so much animosity between the two camps that it becomes impossible to unify the left.” However, he sees a problem with being too coy about our differences. “Bernie might not want to criticize Warren directly, but he should certainly draw contrasts,” Robinson said, and he should be more willing to explain why he’s the better candidate. And as for Bernie supporters like him, “I think it’s important to actually criticize things about Warren’s record and politics and her whole method.” Bernie needs to take a more commanding lead over Biden and, Robinson said, “The obvious way to do that is to take those people whose first choice is Warren and second choice is Bernie and flip them.”
David Segal maintains that Sanders is better off continuing to go after Biden voters. “Bernie’s recent tactic of drawing a more explicit contrast with Biden makes sense because Biden’s support is relatively soft — very few of his voters are enthusiastic about him — and in terms of raw numbers, it’s where the greatest number of second-choice Bernie supporters lie.” Meanwhile, Segal explained, hitting Biden serves the cause of unity. “The progressives who make up pluralities of the Sanders and Warren bases are generally unified in their critique of Biden. It’s a signal that they are all on the same team.” In other words, there are fewer votes to be had in attacking Warren, and it risks polarizing the more committed base of her supporters.
“There is no coherent strategic rationale for the campaigns to attack each other,” Segal said.
It’s often assumed in horserace coverage of the primary that Warren and Sanders are competing for the same voters; if one rises in the polls, the other drops. But that’s only partially true. Thirty-one percent of Sanders supporters pick Warren as their second choice, but 29 percent pick Joe Biden and another 9 percent pick Andrew Yang. Similarly, 32 percent of Warren voters pick Sanders as their second choice, but 22 percent pick Biden and 11 percent pick Pete Buttigieg. If Warren dropped out tomorrow, Bernie would gain some voters, but so would his moderate competitors. For instance, with Sanders polling at 20 percent and Warren at 14 in the Real Clear Politics average, Sanders would pick up about 5 percentage points if Warren dropped out, while Biden, who is at 30 percent, would pick up 3 and Buttigieg 2, the rest dispersed. Yes, Bernie gains, but Biden continues his climb toward 50 percent.
Meanwhile, without Warren in the race, as Buttigieg fades, his supporters, who trend older and whiter, would be more likely to drift to Biden than Sanders, meaning that Biden would continue to pull away, unless Sanders could find a way to reverse that dynamic. According to Morning Consult, Biden is the second choice of the most Buttigieg supporters, at 27 percent, followed by Warren at 20 and Sanders at 12 percent. So if both Warren and Sanders stay in the race, the left rises if Buttigieg falls. If only Sanders is in the race when Buttigieg begs off, Sanders would fall significantly relative to Biden.
If Sanders, Biden, and Buttigieg all arrive at the convention splitting delegates three ways, it’s hard to see that contest tilting toward Sanders and not one of the moderates.
Robinson argued that such logic only meant that Sanders supporters should hope that Buttigieg stays in as long as possible, not that Warren staying in is good (“It mainly makes me want to donate to Mayor Pete,” Robinson quipped). But if Sanders, Biden, and Buttigieg all arrive at the convention splitting delegates three ways, it’s hard to see that contest tilting toward Sanders and not one of the moderates. Getting to 2,000 delegates — the majority needed — will be difficult for any single candidate, said Larry Cohen, former president of the Communications Workers of America and current chair of Our Revolution, the nonprofit political organization founded by Sanders after his 2016 presidential run.
“It’s a Venn diagram. Not a circle,” Cohen said. Given the power and money behind the establishment wing of the party, Cohen sees unity as the only path to victory for the left. “The math to 2,000, unless Biden totally melts, is tortured. It’s not there. Nobody is getting 2,000.” Having both Sanders and Warren in the race turning out their respective bases and winning delegates may be the likeliest path to a progressive majority at the convention.
For Cohen, who personally supports Sanders and served as the campaign’s liaison to organized labor in 2016, a unity message is not just about singing “kumbaya” and getting along: “It’s not just that we need progressive unity; that’s a nice idea. But this is more than a nice idea. I think there’s a very good chance those delegates will have to stick together. Not just on other issues, like the platform, but to nominate the president.”
How would that work? Well, as Cohen sees it, they can’t wait for a second ballot at the convention. Even if every Sanders delegate moves to Warren or vice versa, the corporate wing will have a chance to consolidate around one candidate, now with the help of an additional 750 nonelected delegates (aka super delegates). In other words, progressives could enter the convention with a majority of elected delegates and leave with Joe Biden as the nominee. “It would be insane for Warren and Sanders supporters to allow that to happen,” said Cohen. Instead, consolidation has to come before the convention — the old fashioned way: “One of them drops out, and they make a deal.” Just not yet.


theintercept--2020-01-10--House Votes to Stop Trump From Attacking Iran

on Thursday passed a rare measure aimed at restricting President Donald Trump ’ s power to launch offensive military attacks against Iran .
In the wake of the assassination of Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani by U.S. drone last week , the House voted 224-194 , largely along party lines , to pass the resolution , which directs Trump to terminate any unauthorized military hostilities against Tehran .
The Democrat-backed resolution was sponsored by Rep. Elissa Slotkin , D.-Mich , a former CIA analyst and national security official who specialized in Iranian-backed militias in Iraq .
But the resolution stops @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ability to strike Iran , carving out an exception for situations when military force is “ necessary and appropriate to defend against an imminent attack ” on Americans .
Trump administration officials have repeatedly invoked the prospect of an “ imminent threat ” to justify Suleimani ’ s killing .
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo claimed that Sulemiani planned an attack that would put “ dozens if not hundreds of American lives at risk ” and Defense Secretary Mark Esper told reporters earlier this week that it was “ more fair to say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” instead of weeks , away .
On Thursday , Trump himself claimed that the Iranians were “ looking to blow up our embassy ” in Baghdad , but cited no facts to back up the assertion .
Following classified briefings for members of Congress on Wednesday , numerous lawmakers from both parties said that the administration did not present direct evidence of an imminent threat , even when they repeatedly asked officials to do so .
Slotkin explained the decision to limit the measure ’ s force on the House floor Thursday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ national security official meant she did not want to interfere with the president ’ s power to respond to a crisis .
“ It is extremely important to me that this resolution in no ways ties the president ’ s hands , or takes away any capabilities from our military commanders to respond in self-defense for ourselves and for our allies , ” said Slotkin .
The resolution passed Thursday invokes the War Powers Act , giving it “ privileged ” status in both chambers of Congress .
That means Democrats can bypass @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any member can bring it up for a vote on the floor .
Procedurally , the measure is also a “ concurrent ” resolution , meaning that if it passes both chambers of Congress , Trump will not have a chance to veto it .
Republicans in the House argued that the measure ’ s concurrent status meant that it would not be legally binding , rendering it the equivalent of a Democratic press release .
“ This is a political statement for a left-wing domestic audience , ” said Rep. Michael McCaul @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Foreign Affairs Committee .
“ But they are not the only ones watching .
Iran is watching , and its proxies are watching .
And what they see is a divided America that does not fully support the ability of our commander-in-chief to respond to imminent threats to Americans.
” On the House Floor , McCaul also said he ’ d met with Trump earlier in the day , and the president had told him that “ if this resolution passes , it will take all of his power to negotiate with Iran @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is not currently engaged in negotiations with Iran , which has repeatedly said that it would not return to the table unless Trump repealed harsh sanctions levied by his administration .
In the wake of the Suleimani ’ s killing , talks seem highly unlikely .
Although the vote was along party lines , one close Republican ally of Trump ’ s spoke out in favor of the resolution , saying that on Thursday morning he had attended a burial at Arlington National Cemetery .
“ If the members of our armed services @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and die in these wars , as Congress we ought to have the courage to vote for them or against them , ” said Matt Gaetz , R-Fla. , “ I support the president , killing Suleimani was the right decision .
But engaging in another forever war with the Middle East would be the wrong decision , and that ’ s why I ’ m voting for this resolution.
” Following classified briefings on Wednesday , progressive Democrats urged Congress to pass a measure with stronger legal authority that would defund an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ measure passed the House last year as an amendment to an annual $ 738 billion Defense Department funding bill , but it was stripped from the final version .
Following Suleimani ’ s assassination last week , Rep. Ro Khanna , D.-Calif , and Sen. Bernie Sanders , I.-Vt. , introduced the measure as a standalone bill.
, and on Wednesday , Khanna told reporters that if that measure had been allowed to pass , Suleimani likely would be alive today .
But the new version will probably face stiff opposition in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it in committee because it is not “ privileged ” under Congressional rules .
“ Do not give a blank check to the Pentagon for $ 738 billion without a restriction and a commitment that they won ’ t go into Iran , ” Khanna told reporters .
“ The day we gave them the money without any restriction was the day that they thought they had a blank check .
”

The House of Representatives on Thursday passed a rare measure aimed at restricting President Donald Trump’s power to launch offensive military attacks against Iran.
In the wake of the assassination of Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani by U.S. drone last week, the House voted 224-194, largely along party lines, to pass the resolution, which directs Trump to terminate any unauthorized military hostilities against Tehran.
The Democrat-backed resolution was sponsored by Rep. Elissa Slotkin, D.-Mich, a former CIA analyst and national security official who specialized in Iranian-backed militias in Iraq.
But the resolution stops short of fully restraining Trump’s ability to strike Iran, carving out an exception for situations when military force is “necessary and appropriate to defend against an imminent attack” on Americans.
Trump administration officials have repeatedly invoked the prospect of an “imminent threat” to justify Suleimani’s killing. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo claimed that Suleimani planned an attack that would put “dozens if not hundreds of American lives at risk” and Defense Secretary Mark Esper told reporters earlier this week that it was “more fair to say” that the threat was “days” instead of weeks, away. On Thursday, Trump himself claimed that the Iranians were “looking to blow up our embassy” in Baghdad, but cited no facts to back up the assertion.
Following classified briefings for members of Congress on Wednesday, numerous lawmakers from both parties said that the administration did not present direct evidence of an imminent threat, even when they repeatedly asked officials to do so.
Slotkin explained the decision to limit the measure’s force on the House floor Thursday, saying that her experience as a national security official meant she did not want to interfere with the president’s power to respond to a crisis.
“It is extremely important to me that this resolution in no ways ties the president’s hands, or takes away any capabilities from our military commanders to respond in self-defense for ourselves and for our allies,” said Slotkin.
The resolution passed Thursday invokes the War Powers Act, giving it “privileged” status in both chambers of Congress. That means Democrats can bypass leadership in the Republican-controlled Senate, and any member can bring it up for a vote on the floor.
Procedurally, the measure is also a “concurrent” resolution, meaning that if it passes both chambers of Congress, Trump will not have a chance to veto it. Republicans in the House argued that the measure’s concurrent status meant that it would not be legally binding, rendering it the equivalent of a Democratic press release.
“This is a political statement for a left-wing domestic audience,” said Rep. Michael McCaul, the lead Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. “But they are not the only ones watching. Iran is watching, and its proxies are watching. And what they see is a divided America that does not fully support the ability of our commander in chief to respond to imminent threats to Americans.”
On the House Floor, McCaul also said he’d met with Trump earlier in the day, and the president had told him that “if this resolution passes, it will take all of his power to negotiate with Iran off the table.”
The Trump administration is not currently engaged in negotiations with Iran, which has repeatedly said that it would not return to the table unless Trump repealed harsh sanctions levied by his administration. In the wake of the Suleimani’s killing, talks seem highly unlikely.
Although the vote was along party lines, one close Republican ally of Trump’s spoke out in favor of the resolution, saying that on Thursday morning he had attended a burial at Arlington National Cemetery.
“If the members of our armed services have the courage to go and fight and die in these wars, as Congress we ought to have the courage to vote for them or against them,” said Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., “I support the president; killing Suleimani was the right decision. But engaging in another forever war with the Middle East would be the wrong decision, and that’s why I’m voting for this resolution.”
Following classified briefings on Wednesday, progressive Democrats urged Congress to pass a measure with stronger legal authority that would defund an unprovoked war against Iran. The same measure passed the House last year as an amendment to an annual $738 billion Defense Department funding bill, but it was stripped from the final version.
Following Suleimani’s assassination last week, Rep. Ro Khanna, D.-Calif, and Sen. Bernie Sanders, I.-Vt., introduced the measure as a standalone bill., and on Wednesday, Khanna told reporters that if that measure had been allowed to pass, Suleimani likely would be alive today. But the new version will probably face stiff opposition in the Senate, where Republican leadership can kill it in committee because it is not “privileged” under congressional rules.
“Do not give a blank check to the Pentagon for $738 billion without a restriction and a commitment that they won’t go into Iran,” Khanna told reporters. “The day we gave them the money without any restriction was the day that they thought they had a blank check.”


theintercept--2020-01-10--U.S. Strike on Iranian Commander in Yemen the Night of Suleimani’s Assassination Killed the Wrong Ma

U.S. Strike on Iranian Commander in Yemen the Night of Suleimani’s Assassination Killed the Wrong Man

the U.S. assassinated Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani by drone strike , the U.S. launched a similar operation to kill a top Iranian commander in Yemen , a U.S. official told The Intercept .
The operation was aimed at killing Abdul Reza Shahlai , the commander of the Yemen division of Iran ’ s elite Quds Force , near the Yemeni capital Sana ’ a .
Shahlai survived , but a lower-level Quds Force operative was killed , and Shahlai went into hiding , the official said .
Shortly thereafter , Iranian state TV reportedly announced the death of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ one of the fields of Resistance Front.
” Shahlai is a senior operator in the Quds Force , the external operations arm of Iran ’ s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps .
He was sanctioned by the U.S. in 2008 for his role in operations against the United States in Iraq , and the U.S. has accused him of coordinating a 2011 plot to assassinate the former Saudi ambassador to the U.S. , Adel al-Jubeir , at a restaurant in Washington , D.C. Shahlai has since been placed in charge of the Quds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ militia in its war against Saudi-led intervention in Yemen , the official said .
The strike was first reported by the Washington Post .
The White House referred The Intercept to the Department of Defense , which did not respond to a request for comment in time for publication .
The Trump administration had contemplated killing Shahlai for three years , as a means of deterring further Iranian support for the Houthis in Yemen , the U.S. official told The Intercept .
But the attempt to assassinate him on the night of January @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s stated rationale for killing Suleimani , who U.S. officials have repeatedly described as posing “ an imminent threat ” to U.S. forces in Iraq .
Shahlai is unlikely to have posed a similar threat in Sana ’ a , where the U.S. evacuated its embassy compound in 2013 .
The U.S. conducts operations and drone strikes against Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in Yemen , but does not have personnel in the north of the country , which is controlled by the Houthis and where Sana ’ a is located .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rep. Ro Khanna , D.-Calif. , who has been critical of the U.S. role in the Saudi-led intervention .
“ What was the full extent of the Trump administration ’ s plans to kill Iranian officials ?
How does the attempted killing in Yemen have anything to do with an imminent threat ?
” Since the beginning of Yemen ’ s civil war , a small number of Iranians have provided weapons and training to the Houthis .
In March 2014 , a coalition led by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Houthis from power and restoring the previous Yemeni president , Abd Rabbu Mansour Hadi .
In the four years since , the situation has devolved into a war of attrition fueled by international proxies that has given rise to one of the world ’ s worst humanitarian crises .
Congress has not authorized U.S. military action against Iran , so members are likely to question the legal basis for a strike against Shahlai .
Congress did , however , recently pass a bipartisan resolution directing President Donald Trump to withdraw U.S. forces @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump vetoed the resolution , but it marked a clear desire on the part of Congress to end American support for Saudi-led operations in the country .
The Trump administration has characterized its strike on Suleimani as an act of self-defense , saying that the commander was planning imminent attacks against dozens and possibly hundreds of Americans .
But following classified briefings on Capitol Hill , numerous lawmakers from both parties claimed that the administration had failed to present direct evidence of an “ imminent threat , ” even when they asked repeatedly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ came in the midst of escalating hostilities between American forces and Iranian-backed militias in Iraq .
As tensions rose last month , a rocket attack by an Iran-backed group called Kataib Hezbollah killed one American contractor and wounded four American servicemembers .
Days later , the U.S. retaliated by bombing five Kataib Hezbollah positions , killing 24 people and wounding 50 , according to a Hezbollah spokesperson .
In the following days , members of the militia and their supporters stormed the fortified U.S. embassy compound in Baghdad .
No one was killed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Following the strike on Suleimani , the U.S. sent a letter to the U.N. Security Council , saying that the U.S. had “ undertaken certain actions in the exercises of its inherent right of self-defense , ” and that the actions “ include ” the operation to kill Suleimani , leaving open the possibility that the U.S. conducted other strikes that night .

On the night the U.S. assassinated Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani by drone strike, the U.S. launched a similar operation to kill a top Iranian commander in Yemen, a U.S. official told The Intercept.
The operation was aimed at killing Abdul Reza Shahlai, the commander of the Yemen division of Iran’s elite Quds Force, near the Yemeni capital Sana’a. Shahlai survived, but a lower-level Quds Force operative was killed, and Shahlai went into hiding, the official said. Shortly thereafter, Iranian state TV reportedly announced the death of a Quds Force operative named Mohammad Mirza in “one of the fields of Resistance Front.”
The IRGC Qods Force seems to have acknowledged a fatality in Yemen for 1st time. State media says that Mostafa QF operative Mohammad-Mirza'i died in a military operation on 3 January in "one of the fields of Resistance Front." State media is very open about Iraq, Syria deaths. pic.twitter.com/QwaeeHvfGT — Amir Toumaj (@AmirToumaj) January 6, 2020
Shahlai is a senior operator in the Quds Force, the external operations arm of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. He was sanctioned by the U.S. in 2008 for his role in operations against the United States in Iraq, and the U.S. has accused him of coordinating a 2011 plot to assassinate the former Saudi ambassador to the U.S., Adel al-Jubeir, at a restaurant in Washington, D.C. Shahlai has since been placed in charge of the Quds Force division responsible for aiding the Houthi militia in its war against Saudi-led intervention in Yemen, the official said.
The strike was first reported by the Washington Post. The White House referred The Intercept to the Department of Defense, which did not respond to a request for comment in time for publication.
The Trump administration had contemplated killing Shahlai for three years, as a means of deterring further Iranian support for the Houthis in Yemen, the U.S. official told The Intercept. But the attempt to assassinate him on the night of January 2 seems to undercut the government’s stated rationale for killing Suleimani, who U.S. officials have repeatedly described as posing “an imminent threat” to U.S. forces in Iraq.
Shahlai is unlikely to have posed a similar threat in Sana’a, where the U.S. evacuated its embassy compound in 2013. The U.S. conducts operations and drone strikes against Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in Yemen, but does not have personnel in the north of the country, which is controlled by the Houthis and where Sana’a is located.
“Congress needs answers,” tweeted Rep. Ro Khanna, D.-Calif., who has been critical of the U.S. role in the Saudi-led intervention. “What was the full extent of the Trump administration’s plans to kill Iranian officials? How does the attempted killing in Yemen have anything to do with an imminent threat?”
Special Representative for Iran Brian Hook addresses reporters at the U.S. Department of State in Washington, D.C., on Dec. 5, 2019, offering $15 million for information related to Abdul Reza Shahlai. Photo: Freddie Everett/U.S. State Department
Since the beginning of Yemen’s civil war, a small number of Iranians have provided weapons and training to the Houthis. In March 2014, a coalition led by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates launched a U.S.-backed intervention aimed at removing the Houthis from power and restoring the previous Yemeni president, Abd Rabbu Mansour Hadi. In the four years since, the situation has devolved into a war of attrition fueled by international proxies that has given rise to one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises.
Congress has not authorized U.S. military action against Iran, so members are likely to question the legal basis for a strike against Shahlai. Congress did, however, recently pass a bipartisan resolution directing President Donald Trump to withdraw U.S. forces from “hostilities” in Yemen. Trump vetoed the resolution, but it marked a clear desire on the part of Congress to end American support for Saudi-led operations in the country.
The Trump administration has characterized its strike on Suleimani as an act of self-defense, saying that the commander was planning imminent attacks against dozens and possibly hundreds of Americans. But following classified briefings on Capitol Hill, numerous lawmakers from both parties claimed that the administration had failed to present direct evidence of an “imminent threat,” even when they asked repeatedly and directly.
The strike on Suleimani came in the midst of escalating hostilities between American forces and Iranian-backed militias in Iraq. As tensions rose last month, a rocket attack by an Iran-backed group called Kataib Hezbollah killed one American contractor and wounded four American servicemembers. Days later, the U.S. retaliated by bombing five Kataib Hezbollah positions, killing 24 people and wounding 50, according to a Hezbollah spokesperson. In the following days, members of the militia and their supporters stormed the fortified U.S. embassy compound in Baghdad. No one was killed, but the security situation remained tense.
Following the strike on Suleimani, the U.S. sent a letter to the U.N. Security Council, saying that the U.S. had “undertaken certain actions in the exercises of its inherent right of self-defense,” and that the actions “include” the operation to kill Suleimani, leaving open the possibility that the U.S. conducted other strikes that night.


theintercept--2020-01-10--Joe Biden Is Getting Millions of Dollars of Air Cover in Iowa From Undisclosed Donors

Unite the Country PAC , which was launched in October by longtime advisers to the former vice president and allies of former President Barack Obama , has spent $ 2.3 million on TV ads in support of Biden in Iowa , according to recent disclosures .
As Sen. Cory Booker ’ s campaign continues to flounder , his Super PAC , United We Win , has spent $ 250,000 on TV advertising on his behalf .
Other campaigns have made massive investments in TV ads in Iowa .
Both Bernie Sanders and Pete Buttigieg have spent around $ 3.9 million @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far .
Andrew Yang has spent $ 2.5 million , Biden has spent $ 1.8 million , and Elizabeth Warren has spent $ 1.6 million .
Billionaire Tom Steyer has spent $ 9 million in Iowa and $ 116.5 million overall , and it ’ s paying off : According to a Fox News poll released this week , Steyer is polling ahead of Sanders , Warren , and Buttigieg in South Carolina , where he ’ s spent $ 8.3 million on TV ads , and ahead of Warren in Nevada , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ million .
Former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg , who is self-funding his campaign , has spent $ 153.1 million on TV ads so far .
Biden had disavowed the support of Super PACs early in his campaign , but walked that position back just before Unite the Country launched in October .
The timing of the launch comes with an additional benefit : The PAC will be able to keep its donors under wraps until just three days before the February 3 Iowa caucus .
Under Federal Election Commission rules , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is due on January 31 .
The schedule gives Biden more of a chance to escape scrutiny of who exactly is bundling for the PAC — a list likely to include more major industry players , far and away from the working-class voters for whom Biden has cast himself as a hero .
Asked about the date the group was required to file its next disclosure , a spokesperson for the PAC said it followed the FEC ’ s reporting schedule .
The Biden campaign did not respond to requests for comment .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ devoted more of their resources to digital advertising and email distribution , but they continue to spend big on TV ads .
For candidates like Biden , whose campaign had been struggling with fundraising in the fall , Super PACs can play a key role in helping reach people on the airwaves .
Among other Democratic frontrunners , the Warren campaign has no Super PAC , while Sanders has the support of outside operations such as the National Nurses United , Democratic Socialists of America , and Our Revolution , though none will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Super PAC affiliated with National Nurses United , which endorsed Sanders in November , spent $ 5 million to support his 2016 campaign , including a significant portion on ads .
So far this cycle , it has not purchased any ads in favor of the candidate .
As of its last FEC filing in July , NNU reported spending only $ 893 , with $ 1,638 cash on hand .
Its next filing is due on January 31 .
The PAC declined to comment for this story .
The Democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in March , has an independent expenditure to support him , and had spent roughly $ 28,000 as of its last filing in October .
The group spent a little over $ 87,000 to support him in the 2016 election .
Buttigieg , meanwhile , is backed by the VoteVets PAC , which is the largest PAC supporting veterans running for office .
When the group endorsed Buttigieg last month , it said it would spend money on social media and email distribution , and would also focus on opposition research .
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not “ comment on our ad strategy in early primary states , ” and as of its most recent disclosure in December , it had not yet spent any money in support of Buttigieg .
Early in his campaign , Buttigieg said he would reject corporate PAC money , but did not fully swear off support from Super PACs .
Asked by the New York Times if he would request the VoteVets PAC to stop spending on his behalf , Buttigieg said he would not “ get involved in that.
” campaign finance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including during a contentious dispute between Warren and Buttigieg at last month ’ s presidential debate .
Biden entered the race saying he would reject support from Super PACs , which can raise unlimited amounts of money to support candidates of their choice .
His campaign reversed that position in October just before Bloomberg reported Unite the Country ’ s launch .
Biden has also sworn off contributions from lobbyists and fossil fuel companies , but has continued to hold fundraisers with lobbyists and key figures in the financial and fossil fuel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ filed a list of independent expenditures to various contractors .
That included a $ 624,000 Iowa ad buy from Old Town Media , a firm based in Alexandria , Virginia .
The PAC spent an additional $ 36,400 on ad production with two firms : Assemble the Agency , based in New York , and Putnam Partners , based in Washington , D.C. Buttigieg in May shut down his Hitting Home PAC , which he launched in June 2017 following an unsuccessful bid to become chair of the Democratic National Committee .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 2018 cycle .
Despite his pledge not to accept corporate PAC or fossil fuel money , Buttigieg has continued to hold private fundraisers with corporate executives very much intertwined with the fossil fuel industry , including Blackstone .
Sanders , for his part , is also backed by Our Revolution , a 501 ( c ) ( 4 ) nonprofit political organization he founded as an offshoot of his 2016 presidential campaign .
While the group is not technically a Super PAC , it can raise unlimited sums as if it were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its donors .
( The group does disclose the names of its donors , though it does not identify the size of their contributions . )
Sanders leads the fundraising field by far ; his campaign announced last week that he ’ d surpassed 5 million donations from more than 1.2 million people , and that he raised $ 34.5 million in the fourth quarter .
Buttigieg raised $ 24.7 million , Biden raised $ 22.7 million , and Warren raised $ 21.2 million .

Heading into the Iowa caucus, a Super PAC backing Joe Biden is spending big on TV ads in the state, giving him a boost over his fellow Democratic presidential frontrunners.
Unite the Country PAC, which was launched in October by longtime advisers to the former vice president and allies of former President Barack Obama, has spent $2.3 million on TV ads in support of Biden in Iowa, according to recent disclosures.
In recent years, political campaigns have devoted more of their resources to digital advertising and email distribution, but they continue to spend big on TV ads. For candidates like Biden, whose campaign had been struggling with fundraising in the fall, Super PACs can play a key role in helping reach people on the airwaves.
Biden had disavowed the support of Super PACs early in his campaign, but walked that position back just before Unite the Country launched in October. The timing of the launch comes with an additional benefit: The PAC will be able to keep its donors under wraps until just three days before the February 3 Iowa caucus. Under Federal Election Commission rules, the Super PAC’s first disclosure is due on January 31. The schedule gives Biden more of a chance to escape scrutiny of who exactly is bundling for the PAC — a list likely to include more major industry players, far and away from the working-class voters for whom Biden has cast himself as a hero. Asked about the date the group was required to file its next disclosure, a spokesperson for the PAC said it followed the FEC’s reporting schedule. The Biden campaign did not respond to requests for comment.
As Sen. Cory Booker’s campaign continues to flounder, his Super PAC, United We Win, has spent $250,000 on TV advertising on his behalf. Other campaigns have made massive investments in TV ads in Iowa. Both Bernie Sanders and Pete Buttigieg have spent around $3.9 million on TV ads in the state so far. Andrew Yang has spent $2.5 million, Biden has spent $1.8 million, and Elizabeth Warren has spent $1.6 million. Billionaire Tom Steyer has spent $9 million in Iowa and $116.5 million overall, and it’s paying off: According to a Fox News poll released this week, Steyer is polling ahead of Sanders, Warren, and Buttigieg in South Carolina, where he’s spent $8.3 million on TV ads, and ahead of Warren in Nevada, where he’s spent $8.7 million. Former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg, who is self-funding his campaign, has spent $153.1 million on TV ads so far.
Among other Democratic frontrunners, the Warren campaign has no Super PAC, while Sanders has the support of outside operations such as the National Nurses United, Democratic Socialists of America, and Our Revolution, though none will be doing TV ads or spending heavily.
The Super PAC affiliated with National Nurses United, which endorsed Sanders in November, spent $5 million to support his 2016 campaign, including a significant portion on ads. So far this cycle, it has not purchased any ads in favor of the candidate. As of its last FEC filing in July, NNU reported spending only $893, with $1,638 cash on hand. Its next filing is due on January 31. The PAC declined to comment for this story. The Democratic Socialists of America, which endorsed Sanders in March, has an independent expenditure to support him, and had spent roughly $28,000 as of its last filing in October. The group spent a little over $87,000 to support him in the 2016 election.
Buttigieg, meanwhile, is backed by the VoteVets PAC, which is the largest PAC supporting veterans running for office. When the group endorsed Buttigieg last month, it said it would spend money on social media and email distribution, and would also focus on opposition research. A spokesperson for VoteVets said the organization would not “comment on our ad strategy in early primary states,” and as of its most recent disclosure in December, it had not yet spent any money in support of Buttigieg. Early in his campaign, Buttigieg said he would reject corporate PAC money, but did not fully swear off support from Super PACs. Asked by the New York Times if he would request the VoteVets PAC to stop spending on his behalf, Buttigieg said he would not “get involved in that.”
The debate over campaign finance has featured heavily during the Democratic primary, including during a contentious dispute between Warren and Buttigieg at last month’s presidential debate.
Biden entered the race saying he would reject support from Super PACs, which can raise unlimited amounts of money to support candidates of their choice. His campaign reversed that position in October just before Bloomberg reported Unite the Country’s launch. Biden has also sworn off contributions from lobbyists and fossil fuel companies, but has continued to hold fundraisers with lobbyists and key figures in the financial and fossil fuel industries.
Last month, the PAC filed a list of independent expenditures to various contractors. That included a $624,000 Iowa ad buy from Old Town Media, a firm based in Alexandria, Virginia. The PAC spent an additional $36,400 on ad production with two firms: Assemble the Agency, based in New York, and Putnam Partners, based in Washington, D.C.
Buttigieg in May shut down his Hitting Home PAC, which he launched in June 2017 following an unsuccessful bid to become chair of the Democratic National Committee. The PAC was focused on supporting Democrats in the 2018 cycle. Despite his pledge not to accept corporate PAC or fossil fuel money, Buttigieg has continued to hold private fundraisers with corporate executives very much intertwined with the fossil fuel industry, including Blackstone.
Sanders, for his part, is also backed by Our Revolution, a 501(c)(4) nonprofit political organization he founded as an offshoot of his 2016 presidential campaign. While the group is not technically a Super PAC, it can raise unlimited sums as if it were one but does not have to disclose its donors. (The group does disclose the names of its donors, though it does not identify the size of their contributions.)
Sanders leads the fundraising field by far; his campaign announced last week that he’d surpassed 5 million donations from more than 1.2 million people, and that he raised $34.5 million in the fourth quarter. Buttigieg raised $24.7 million, Biden raised $22.7 million, and Warren raised $21.2 million.


theintercept--2020-01-11--How Massive Donations From Howard G. Buffett Helped Block the Opening of a Pot Dispensary in Illinoi

How Massive Donations From Howard G. Buffett Helped Block the Opening of a Pot Dispensary in Illinois

At the center of the city council ’ s position is the indirect influence of Howard G. Buffett , the eldest son of billionaire Warren Buffett , who has lived in the city since the early 1990s .
Howard Buffett is remarkably close to local police ( even serving a recent stint as interim sheriff ) and has poured tens of millions of dollars into law enforcement programs and drug rehabilitation efforts .
Decatur , the largest city in Macon County , Illinois , has a population that is 20 percent black and is eligible for these reparative measures .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of 6-1 , the Decatur City Council voted to prohibit an adult-use cannabis dispensary from opening in the city .
The council also voted 4-3 against allowing cannabis-related businesses , like cultivation and processing centers , to set up shop in Decatur .
On January 1 , Illinois became the 11th state in the U.S. to legalize recreational marijuana , raking in nearly $ 3.2 million in revenue on the first day of sales .
The legislation , enacted by the state ’ s Democratic Gov .
J.B. Pritzker , includes “ social @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and extra funding to areas that disproportionately bore the impact of the war on drugs — those with higher-than-average rates of marijuana-related arrests , convictions , and prison sentences .
Buffett served as sheriff until December 2018 , and during that time , he also published a book arguing for stronger border security to weaken the power of drug cartels .
Last year , he announced that he would be investing up to $ 200 million in Colombia over the next seven years to help the country transition from its drug-based economy .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ auxiliary sheriff ” certification from the Macon County Sheriff ’ s Department , a volunteer police position and by 2014 , was given the title of “ civilian undersheriff ” for which he continued to log thousands of hours as a volunteer , patrolling the streets and undergoing training .
In 2016 , Buffett ’ s foundation donated $ 15 million to build a new law enforcement training center in the county , and $ 2.2 million to support K-9 units across the state .
In the spring of 2017 , his foundation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sheriff ’ s Office could purchase new patrol vehicles .
Four months after that , the elected county sheriff , Thomas Schneider , unexpectedly announced that he ’ d be retiring early from his job .
To the surprise of many , Schneider , a Democrat , named Buffett , a Republican , as his interim successor .
The Democrat-majority Macon County board approved Buffett ’ s appointment , and within six months , Schneider was working a top job at the new Buffet-funded law enforcement training center .
In recent years , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with local police and taken a particular interest in curbing the domestic and international drug trade .
Buffett , his senior executive assistant , and a spokesperson for the Howard G. Buffett Foundation did not return requests for comment .
More recently , Wolfe pointed to a drug rehabilitation center that opened last year thanks to a $ 60 million donation from the foundation as justification for her opposition to the sale of marijuana .
“ It ’ s kind of counterintuitive to say , OK , we have this wonderful facility to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hand , and on the other say , Oh , here , come buy your marijuana downtown.
” “ I personally can ’ t think of a more flat-out rejection of our former sheriff and his foundation than to approve the sale of recreational marijuana without a wait-and-see approach , ” Kuhle said , referring to wanting to see how marijuana legalization plays out in other parts of the state before allowing a dispensary to open in Decatur .
Buffett ’ s financial contributions to the city , as well as his foundation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ influenced at least two city council members ’ opposition to the opening of a dispensary in Decatur .
At the September study session , Council Member Chuck Kuhle stated bluntly that his opposition was tied in part to his desire to respect Buffett .
The emails , which were obtained through a public records request , also show Wolfe and Council Member Patrick McDaniel planning how to avoid backlash for limiting public comment at the September study session .
McDaniel suggested there be one half-hour segment for public comment “ or we will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” and that speakers “ should only be allowed one minute to very briefly state their views.
” Wolfe responded that she agreed .
She pledged to “ make sure we ’ re ok limiting time ” and added that she ’ d “ like a big clock on the monitors.
” Reached for comment , Wolfe told The Intercept that speakers at council meetings typically get three minutes , and that she remembers wanting a clock to help track that .
She added that some residents spoke multiple times throughout the September @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opt out vote , ” wrote Council Member Lisa Gregory in August , according to another one of the emails .
A week before the September study session , Gregory emailed a constituent urging them to “ Please apply pressure to [ Council Member ] David Horn as he intends to vote yes.
” “ The push to opt out is gaining some momentum .
Stay tuned !
” Decatur Mayor Julie Moore Wolfe , who was one of the six no votes , wrote in an email to a constituent on August @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be set in their opposition to allowing a recreational dispensary in Decatur even before a scheduled public meeting on September 30 to deliberate the issue , according to internal city council communications obtained by DPL Watchdogs , a grassroots transparency group , and shared with The Intercept .
His fixation on the drug trade has also led to more than $ 20 million in investments in the Cochise County Sheriff ’ s Office in Arizona , near the U.S.-Mexico border , where he is also part of a private volunteer group that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New Times described it , Buffett has “ purchased the loyalty of — and influence over — the Cochise County Sheriff ’ s Office … through a steady stream of gifts and grants totaling tens of millions of dollars , used to buy guns , vehicles , surveillance equipment , helicopters , and other toys.
” The Howard G. Buffett Foundation purchased more than 2,000 acres of ranch land in Cochise County , including a property that is 300 yards from the U.S.-Mexico border fence .
Buffett has even enlisted the help of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In 2016 , he was photographed with Macon County Sheriff ’ s Office Deputy T.W .
Houk and Decatur Police Department Detective Chad Larner posing with firearms in the dark of the Arizona desert .
Their joint excursion to the southern border had been several months in the making , according to the Phoenix New Times investigation .
In October 2015 , Buffett emailed four Illinois law enforcement colleagues about potential smugglers crossing his ranch property in Arizona , according to correspondence the Phoenix New Times obtained from the Decatur Police Department .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of macon county sheriff vigilantes to show up and kick some ass , ” wrote one Macon County Sheriff Deputy in response .
“ Bring Chad , need his enthusiasm !
” Buffett replied .
Buffett has also taken to criticizing marijuana legalization efforts .
His foundation ’ s 2016 annual report describes legalized pot as “ only rais [ ing ] the stakes ” of the U.S. ’ s drug trade problems and cites that as a reason why Mexican drug cartels have shifted production to drugs like heroin and fentanyl .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ marijuana seizures crossing the Mexican border ; however , Mexican cartels have stepped up their presence and operations in states like Colorado , where marijuana is legal , and have shifted their drug smuggling and production operations to more dangerous and addictive drugs , ” the report states .
As Illinois lawmakers were discussing marijuana legalization in 2018 , Buffett told a local news outlet that doing so would mean law enforcement agencies would need to replace all their K-9 dogs .
“ It ’ s a giant step forward for drug dealers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ and a giant step backwards for law enforcement.
” a community activist who testified in support of allowing a dispensary at the council ’ s study session described the elected officials as sounding like characters from “ Reefer Madness , ” a notorious film from the 1930s featuring high schoolers who suffer a range of tragedies after trying marijuana .
“ Not only did [ the council ] turn down a dispensary but also any transporting of marijuana , any processing plants which could have really helped minority businesses in the area @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Right now , outside of a couple food places , there aren ’ t many black-owned businesses in town , but with there being state social equity funding and waivers for applications , it would have been possible to actually undo some of the hardships minorities have faced by giving them an opportunity to operate legally with various cannabis businesses.
” Lisa Kendall , co-chair of the Central Illinois Democratic Socialists of America chapter , argued that the council ’ s vote — and the fact that two voting members cited the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ city — was not sitting well with local residents .
“ People are waking up to this stuff , and it ’ s pissing them off , ” she said .
David Horn , who was the sole member of the city council to vote for allowing a dispensary in Decatur , told The Intercept that he did so because he heard from more residents who supported it than opposed it .
He said he felt the city could use the additional revenue and that whatever negative impacts there are from cannabis , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be worse with a regulated dispensary.
” He also said he didn ’ t like the idea that medical marijuana users would have to drive outside the city to get their drugs , even though a recreational dispensary could have administered medical pot and that recreational users in the city would be effectively stigmatized for using a legal product .
“ I will say there has been no issue that I have received more contact from citizens over the 2.5 years I ’ ve been on the council than this one , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Kendall , Jenkins , and other local activists formed the Decatur Dispensary Project , to campaign against the council ’ s decision .
“ DSA believes in cannabis justice and reform , and so when the issue came to Decatur , our chapter got very vocal about it and showed up to the study session with signs , ” Kendall told The Intercept .
Justin Weaver , the chapter ’ s other co-chair , said the group also strongly supports allowing a dispensary from a revenue standpoint , pointing to Decatur ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relocated out of the city .
“ We ’ re a shrinking city , we ’ re having budget issues , and over the past seven years , my property tax has gone up by a third , and our utility taxes have gone up , ” he said .
“ This is an undue burden.
” Activists are working to get two nonbinding resolutions on the ballot to demonstrate their displeasure .
The first referendum , which has already been approved for the March 17 state primary , will be for all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about 70 percent of Decatur city .
The question will read : “ Should the city of Decatur allow the sale of recreational cannabis and cannabis-infused products to adults 21 and over ?
” The second referendum , which activists are still collecting signatures for and poses a similar question , would be for all Decatur residents in November .
But on January 3 , Wolfe , the city ’ s mayor , said even a vote decidedly in support of allowing a dispensary in Decatur would not change her mind , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and see how legalization plays out in other parts of Illinois .
Chicago , the state ’ s largest city , has opted in , and even two smaller towns in Macon County voted to allow recreational dispensaries .
As Decatur has been mired in debate over marijuana legalization , the city council also voted in December to approve the creation of a new position for a law enforcement officer who would dedicate “ 100 percent of his time to DUI enforcement , ” according to a city council report on the agreement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for by a four-year grant from the Howard G. Buffett Foundation .
Under the terms of the agreement , which went into effect on January 1 , the Buffett Foundation will pay $ 500,000 to fund this officer ’ s salary and benefits over four years .
The city will be contributing an additional $ 148,000 to cover the remaining cost and is required to submit annual reports to the Buffett Foundation summarizing what happened with each arrest , as well as what the underlying violation was .
Decatur Police Chief James Getz @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not return requests for comment .
John Phillips Jr. , a community activist who has supported cannabis legalization for the last several decades , said while he backs general DUI enforcement , the idea that an officer should spend all his time dedicated to it raises serious questions and concerns , particularly given Decatur ’ s history of racially disparate policing .
A 2018 study by the Illinois Department of Transportation found that although African Americans comprise 21 percent of Decatur ’ s population , they were subject to 46 percent of all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of all car searches .
“ At the end of the day , ” said Phillips , “ prohibition doesn ’ t work , Marijuana has proven to be less dangerous than alcohol , and you can not legislate morality .
”

On January 1, Illinois became the 11th state in the U.S. to legalize recreational marijuana, raking in nearly $3.2 million in revenue on the first day of sales. The legislation, enacted by the state’s Democratic Gov. J.B. Pritzker, includes “social equity” provisions to give dispensary preference and extra funding to areas that disproportionately bore the impact of the war on drugs — those with higher-than-average rates of marijuana-related arrests, convictions, and prison sentences.
Decatur, the largest city in Macon County, Illinois, has a population that is 20 percent black and is eligible for these reparative measures. But in September, by a vote of 6-1, the Decatur City Council voted to prohibit an adult-use cannabis dispensary from opening in the city. The council also voted 4-3 against allowing cannabis-related businesses, like cultivation and processing centers, to set up shop in Decatur.
At the center of the city council’s position is the indirect influence of Howard G. Buffett, the eldest son of billionaire Warren Buffett, who has lived in the city since the early 1990s. Howard Buffett is remarkably close to local police (even serving a recent stint as interim sheriff) and has poured tens of millions of dollars into law enforcement programs and drug rehabilitation efforts.
Most elected city officials appeared to be set in their opposition to allowing a recreational dispensary in Decatur even before a scheduled public meeting on September 30 to deliberate the issue, according to internal city council communications obtained by DPL Watchdogs, a grassroots transparency group, and shared with The Intercept.
“The push to opt out is gaining some momentum. Stay tuned!” Decatur Mayor Julie Moore Wolfe, who was one of the six no votes, wrote in an email to a constituent on August 21.
“I am a firm opt out vote,” wrote Council Member Lisa Gregory in August, according to another one of the emails. A week before the September study session, Gregory emailed a constituent urging them to “Please apply pressure to [Council Member] David Horn as he intends to vote yes.”
The emails, which were obtained through a public records request, also show Wolfe and Council Member Patrick McDaniel planning how to avoid backlash for limiting public comment at the September study session. McDaniel suggested there be one half-hour segment for public comment “or we will never hear the end of it,” and that speakers “should only be allowed one minute to very briefly state their views.” Wolfe responded that she agreed. She pledged to “make sure we’re ok limiting time” and added that she’d “like a big clock on the monitors.” Reached for comment, Wolfe told The Intercept that speakers at council meetings typically get three minutes, and that she remembers wanting a clock to help track that. She added that some residents spoke multiple times throughout the September meeting.
Buffett’s financial contributions to the city, as well as his foundation’s work on addiction treatment, influenced at least two city council members’ opposition to the opening of a dispensary in Decatur. At the September study session, Council Member Chuck Kuhle stated bluntly that his opposition was tied in part to his desire to respect Buffett.
“I personally can’t think of a more flat-out rejection of our former sheriff and his foundation than to approve the sale of recreational marijuana without a wait-and-see approach,” Kuhle said, referring to wanting to see how marijuana legalization plays out in other parts of the state before allowing a dispensary to open in Decatur.
More recently, Wolfe pointed to a drug rehabilitation center that opened last year thanks to a $60 million donation from the foundation as justification for her opposition to the sale of marijuana. “It’s kind of counterintuitive to say, OK, we have this wonderful facility to deal with drug addiction, on one hand, and on the other say, Oh, here, come buy your marijuana downtown.”
In recent years, Howard Buffett has cultivated a close relationship with local police and taken a particular interest in curbing the domestic and international drug trade. Buffett, his senior executive assistant, and a spokesperson for the Howard G. Buffett Foundation did not return requests for comment.
In 2012, he received his “auxiliary sheriff” certification from the Macon County Sheriff’s Department, a volunteer police position and by 2014, was given the title of “civilian undersheriff” for which he continued to log thousands of hours as a volunteer, patrolling the streets and undergoing training. In 2016, Buffett’s foundation donated $15 million to build a new law enforcement training center in the county, and $2.2 million to support K-9 units across the state. In the spring of 2017, his foundation donated $350,000 so the Macon County Sheriff’s Office could purchase new patrol vehicles. Four months after that, the elected county sheriff, Thomas Schneider, unexpectedly announced that he’d be retiring early from his job. To the surprise of many, Schneider, a Democrat, named Buffett, a Republican, as his interim successor. The Democrat-majority Macon County board approved Buffett’s appointment, and within six months, Schneider was working a top job at the new Buffet-funded law enforcement training center.
Buffett served as sheriff until December 2018, and during that time, he also published a book arguing for stronger border security to weaken the power of drug cartels. Last year, he announced that he would be investing up to $200 million in Colombia over the next seven years to help the country transition from its drug-based economy.
Photo: Clay Jackson/Herald & Review via AP
His fixation on the drug trade has also led to more than $20 million in investments in the Cochise County Sheriff’s Office in Arizona, near the U.S.-Mexico border, where he is also part of a private volunteer group that assists in policing. As the Phoenix New Times described it, Buffett has “purchased the loyalty of — and influence over — the Cochise County Sheriff’s Office … through a steady stream of gifts and grants totaling tens of millions of dollars, used to buy guns, vehicles, surveillance equipment, helicopters, and other toys.” The Howard G. Buffett Foundation purchased more than 2,000 acres of ranch land in Cochise County, including a property that is 300 yards from the U.S.-Mexico border fence.
Buffett has even enlisted the help of his law enforcement allies from Illinois. In 2016, he was photographed with Macon County Sheriff’s Office Deputy T.W. Houk and Decatur Police Department Detective Chad Larner posing with firearms in the dark of the Arizona desert.
Their joint excursion to the southern border had been several months in the making, according to the Phoenix New Times investigation. In October 2015, Buffett emailed four Illinois law enforcement colleagues about potential smugglers crossing his ranch property in Arizona, according to correspondence the Phoenix New Times obtained from the Decatur Police Department. “You need a rag tag group of macon county sheriff vigilantes to show up and kick some ass,” wrote one Macon County Sheriff Deputy in response. “Bring Chad, need his enthusiasm!” Buffett replied.
Buffett has also taken to criticizing marijuana legalization efforts. His foundation’s 2016 annual report describes legalized pot as “only rais[ing] the stakes” of the U.S.’s drug trade problems and cites that as a reason why Mexican drug cartels have shifted production to drugs like heroin and fentanyl. “Legal sales of marijuana have reduced marijuana seizures crossing the Mexican border; however, Mexican cartels have stepped up their presence and operations in states like Colorado, where marijuana is legal, and have shifted their drug smuggling and production operations to more dangerous and addictive drugs,” the report states.
As Illinois lawmakers were discussing marijuana legalization in 2018, Buffett told a local news outlet that doing so would mean law enforcement agencies would need to replace all their K-9 dogs. “It’s a giant step forward for drug dealers,” he told The Pantagraph, “and a giant step backwards for law enforcement.”
Jacob Jenkins, a community activist who testified in support of allowing a dispensary at the council’s study session described the elected officials as sounding like characters from “Reefer Madness,” a notorious film from the 1930s featuring high schoolers who suffer a range of tragedies after trying marijuana.
“Not only did [the council] turn down a dispensary but also any transporting of marijuana, any processing plants which could have really helped minority businesses in the area,” Jenkins told The Intercept. “Right now, outside of a couple food places, there aren’t many black-owned businesses in town, but with there being state social equity funding and waivers for applications, it would have been possible to actually undo some of the hardships minorities have faced by giving them an opportunity to operate legally with various cannabis businesses.”
Lisa Kendall, co-chair of the Central Illinois Democratic Socialists of America chapter, argued that the council’s vote — and the fact that two voting members cited the Buffett Foundation’s donations to the city — was not sitting well with local residents. “People are waking up to this stuff, and it’s pissing them off,” she said.
David Horn, who was the sole member of the city council to vote for allowing a dispensary in Decatur, told The Intercept that he did so because he heard from more residents who supported it than opposed it. He said he felt the city could use the additional revenue and that whatever negative impacts there are from cannabis, “there is no evidence it will be worse with a regulated dispensary.” He also said he didn’t like the idea that medical marijuana users would have to drive outside the city to get their drugs, even though a recreational dispensary could have administered medical pot and that recreational users in the city would be effectively stigmatized for using a legal product.
“I will say there has been no issue that I have received more contact from citizens over the 2.5 years I’ve been on the council than this one,” Horn said.
Following the September vote, Kendall, Jenkins, and other local activists formed the Decatur Dispensary Project, to campaign against the council’s decision.
“DSA believes in cannabis justice and reform, and so when the issue came to Decatur, our chapter got very vocal about it and showed up to the study session with signs,” Kendall told The Intercept. Justin Weaver, the chapter’s other co-chair, said the group also strongly supports allowing a dispensary from a revenue standpoint, pointing to Decatur’s dwindling population and industries that have relocated out of the city.
“We’re a shrinking city, we’re having budget issues, and over the past seven years, my property tax has gone up by a third, and our utility taxes have gone up,” he said. “This is an undue burden.”
Activists are working to get two nonbinding resolutions on the ballot to demonstrate their displeasure. The first referendum, which has already been approved for the March 17 state primary, will be for all residents of Decatur Township, which covers about 70 percent of Decatur city. The question will read: “Should the city of Decatur allow the sale of recreational cannabis and cannabis-infused products to adults 21 and over?” The second referendum, which activists are still collecting signatures for and poses a similar question, would be for all Decatur residents in November.
But on January 3, Wolfe, the city’s mayor, said even a vote decidedly in support of allowing a dispensary in Decatur would not change her mind, and she’d still prefer to wait and see how legalization plays out in other parts of Illinois. Chicago, the state’s largest city, has opted in, and even two smaller towns in Macon County voted to allow recreational dispensaries.
As Decatur has been mired in debate over marijuana legalization, the city council also voted in December to approve the creation of a new position for a law enforcement officer who would dedicate “100 percent of his time to DUI enforcement,” according to a city council report on the agreement. The position would be primarily paid for by a four-year grant from the Howard G. Buffett Foundation.
Under the terms of the agreement, which went into effect on January 1, the Buffett Foundation will pay $500,000 to fund this officer’s salary and benefits over four years. The city will be contributing an additional $148,000 to cover the remaining cost and is required to submit annual reports to the Buffett Foundation summarizing what happened with each arrest, as well as what the underlying violation was.
Decatur Police Chief James Getz Jr. and Deputy Chief Shane Brandel did not return requests for comment.
John Phillips Jr., a community activist who has supported cannabis legalization for the last several decades, said while he backs general DUI enforcement, the idea that an officer should spend all his time dedicated to it raises serious questions and concerns, particularly given Decatur’s history of racially disparate policing. A 2018 study by the Illinois Department of Transportation found that although African Americans comprise 21 percent of Decatur’s population, they were subject to 46 percent of all police traffic stops, and 58 percent of all car searches.
“At the end of the day,” said Phillips, “prohibition doesn’t work, Marijuana has proven to be less dangerous than alcohol, and you cannot legislate morality.”