theintercept--2020-01-16--Iran Tensions Showed How Much More Work an Effective U.S. Anti-War Movement Needs to Do

President Donald Trump ’ s illegal and unwarranted President Donald Trump ’ s illegal and unwarranted assassination of Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani , cities across the U.S. saw the stirrings of anti-war protests .
Thousands rallied to oppose a full-fledged war with Iran — numbers far smaller than the millions who amassed to protest the 2003 invasion of Iraq , but not an insignificant showing .
In the wake of some welcome de-escalation on the part of the Iranians and the Trump administration , the calls for mass anti-war mobilizations are already gaining less traction ; a planned international @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is unlikely to draw big crowds .
With the U.S. stepping back from the brink of another all-out war only to return to a status quo of elevated bellicosity , today ’ s would-be anti-war movement should reevaluate but not retreat .
The work of international solidarity — and the need to situate anti-war activism in the broader struggle against social injustice and fascist Trumpian policy — can not wait for the war drum to again rise to a deafening beat .
Nor can a movement against the U.S. war machine and its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the spectacle of mass marches to make effective interventions .
Without a declaration of war and invasion , without the sort of grand event of war and attendant presidential addresses , it ’ s hard to imagine building up the sort of vast response that constituted the movement against the Iraq War .
But , as those of us who joined historically large marches in 2002 and 2003 painfully learned , even numbers did not translate to potency .
And what sense , does it make to invoke the rhetoric of an “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there can be war without war , through proxies , murderous sanctions , travel bans , and drone strikes in the service of oil pillages ?
What ’ s more , today ’ s anti-war politics are complicated by factionalism on the left engendered by a series of complex conflicts , geopolitical developments , and internal factors in places like Iran — not to mention the politics of war in the U.S. itself .
These factors interact to create a treacherous landscape for any would-be anti-war movement .
Often , they provide a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how not to build an effective movement .
Yet a path exists : the path of a true , solidarity-oriented mass movement coupled with direct action .
Let ’ s begin with the state of today ’ s anti-war movement in the U.S. Coming to the brink of war puts modest crowds into the streets .
But the fracturing of the left over conflicts like Syria ’ s civil war has meant that these sorts of events don ’ t always center one of the most important qualities of a robust anti-war movement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — including a number of the speakers invited by the coalition Act Now to Stop War and End Racism , known as ANSWER , to speak outside the White House at a rally last week — the “ anti-war ” position all too easily collapses into supporting brutal regimes , like those of Syria and Iran , against violent U.S. regime change efforts .
This sort of rudimentary anti-imperialism , which finds heroes in any perceived target of scrambling U.S. hegemony , need not be our focus .
Suffice it to say , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ necessarily a friend .
The lesson here means recognizing , for instance , the way that Iranian citizens are oppressed and repressed by U.S. sanctions , which Trump is now worsening , and also by their own government .
Mass protests across Iran against punishing cuts to fuel subsidies have been ongoing since November ; the government has responded with internet blackouts and deadly anti-protest police and military violence .
When working-class Iranian citizens and students are taking to the streets en masse to decry their government as a dictatorship , they are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yet neither are they looking to American activists to express solidarity with Iranian state leadership .
In a recent n+1 essay , an Iranian journalist who , to protect their identity , goes by Matin told fellow journalist Nilo Tabrizy , upon hearing the announcement of three days of national mourning for Suleimani , “ Iran was already in the middle of mourning those who ’ d been killed by our own government ” during the recent unrest .
There are ongoing and escalating anti-leadership protests in Tehran and other cities following the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iranian military missiles .
The citizens of Iran , mobilizing to live in dignity and afford basic needs , are not best supported through hagiographies to the Iranian state .
Anti-war solidarity must take a better form .
Then there are legislative and electoral routes to which U.S. activists can commit energies , say by supporting a true , lifelong anti-war candidate like Sen. Bernie Sanders , I-Vt. , for example .
Sanders has pledged to cut Pentagon budgets and , crucially , situates his anti-war stance in the class politics around which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ famous position of socialist Eugene V. Debs , Sanders noted last week that military conflict is waged by the ruling class but fought — and suffered through — by the working classes .
In terms of legislation , Sanders , alongside Rep. Ro Khanna , D-Calif. , last week introduced a bill to prohibit any funding for offensive military force in or against Iran without prior congressional authorization .
Dozens of lawmakers have signed on and constituents can pressure their senators to take up this congressional limit on the erratic and reckless executive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to wholly rely on progressive legislative plans to curtail U.S. war-making .
Sanders and Khanna led efforts last year to similarly restrict military activity and end U.S. funding to Saudi Arabia ’ s devastating war in Yemen , only to see their measures stripped from the National Defense Authorization Act adopted with bipartisan support by Congress in December .
The new bill may be doomed to the same fate and the administration ’ s ability to bypass Congress in matters of war , especially in the case of drone strikes , should not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it ’ s difficult to remember that the horizon of political engagement goes beyond the ballot box .
At the same time , when it comes to anti-war activism , those of us who came of age during the Iraq War protests have no model or memory of effectual action .
We continue to join big , placid marches to express political allegiances .
Defanged histories of U.S. protest movements tell us that big marches are what resistance looks like , from the civil rights struggle to opposition against the Vietnam War @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through which to find allies and build communities , but , as I and others have previously noted , bringing hundreds of thousands of people to a mass march half a century ago was much harder without the tools of social media .
Great numbers back then demonstrated powerful underlying capacities : If they can organize this , what else can they do ?
Meanwhile a mass march today , organized through Facebook or Twitter , often represents the extent and limit , rather than the potential , of a movement to mobilize @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as no threat to power operating as usual .
It ’ s not easy to know what — facing the U.S. regime of surveillance capital and militarized policing — a protest movement could look like that would be capable of forcing the government ’ s hand against continued and further war-making .
I offer here just one example , raised last week by theorist and author Joshua Clover in Commune Magazine ( where I am an editor ) : “ It ’ s puzzlingly easy to forget that the first and most decisive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the so-called Muslim ban , derived not from public marches but decisive and distributed infrastructure shutdowns.
” On February 6 , 2017 , in immediate response to Trump ’ s announcement of the so-called Muslim ban on travel , thousands of protesters rushed to major U.S. airports .
The mobilization began with just 30 people outside Terminal 4 of New York ’ s John F. Kennedy International Airport , where two Iraqis were being detained by Customs and Border Protection .
By nightfall , the airport and others around the country were flooded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cabs refused to pick up or deliver passengers at Kennedy .
And district judges in New York City , Massachusetts , Virginia , and Washington state had blocked parts of Trump ’ s executive order .
The success was temporary : The judges ’ rulings were eventually overturned , and a slightly watered down but still racist and vicious travel ban was upheld by the Supreme Court .
Leaks from the White House just days ago revealed plans to dramatically expand the travel ban to more countries ’ citizens , although the reports @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lesson here is that there are no complete victories — at least not yet — but victories can be achieved nonetheless .
As it stands , the administration ’ s intolerable border policies constitute deadly aggressions against the very people with whom anti-war activists claim to be in solidarity , including Iranians , Iraqis , and Yemenis .
After the recent elevation of conflict with Iran , The Intercept reported that dozens of Iranian families , including American citizens , were detained and questioned for hours at the U.S.-Canada border .
Yet we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ returned to airports and border stations en masse ; we have not taken significant , focused aim against the U.S. deportation and border regime .
Any stand against U.S. imperialism need not wait for more military strikes against Iran to act .
We must mobilize now to prioritize solidarity with the refugees that decades of U.S. war-waging has helped produce ; any anti-war movement worth its salt must therefore be a movement for opening our borders too .
The direct action that shut down airport functions that February day , briefly disrupting the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policy , is an example to remember and repeat .
It is , to say the least , a place to start .

Photo: Spencer Platt/Getty Images
Last week, following
President Donald Trump’s illegal and unwarranted assassination of Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, cities across the U.S. saw the stirrings of anti-war protests. Thousands rallied to oppose a full-fledged war with Iran — numbers far smaller than the millions who amassed to protest the 2003 invasion of Iraq, but not an insignificant showing. In the wake of some welcome de-escalation on the part of the Iranians and the Trump administration, the calls for mass anti-war mobilizations are already gaining less traction; a planned international day of anti-war protest on January 25 is unlikely to draw big crowds.
With the U.S. stepping back from the brink of another all-out war only to return to a status quo of elevated bellicosity, today’s would-be anti-war movement should reevaluate but not retreat. The work of international solidarity — and the need to situate anti-war activism in the broader struggle against social injustice and fascist Trumpian policy — cannot wait for the war drum to again rise to a deafening beat. Nor can a movement against the U.S. war machine and its $738 billion budget rely simply on the spectacle of mass marches to make effective interventions.
A path forward exists: the path of a true, solidarity-oriented mass movement coupled with direct action.
Without a declaration of war and invasion, without the sort of grand event of war and attendant presidential addresses, it’s hard to imagine building up the sort of vast response that constituted the movement against the Iraq War. But, as those of us who joined historically large marches in 2002 and 2003 painfully learned, even numbers did not translate to potency. And what sense, does it make to invoke the rhetoric of an “anti-war” position at a time when there can be war without war, through proxies, murderous sanctions, travel bans, and drone strikes in the service of oil pillages?
What’s more, today’s anti-war politics are complicated by factionalism on the left engendered by a series of complex conflicts, geopolitical developments, and internal factors in places like Iran — not to mention the politics of war in the U.S. itself.
These factors interact to create a treacherous landscape for any would-be anti-war movement. Often, they provide a roadmap of where not to go — how not to build an effective movement. Yet a path exists: the path of a true, solidarity-oriented mass movement coupled with direct action.
Centering Solidarity
Let’s begin with the state of today’s anti-war movement in the U.S. Coming to the brink of war puts modest crowds into the streets. But the fracturing of the left over conflicts like Syria’s civil war has meant that these sorts of events don’t always center one of the most important qualities of a robust anti-war movement: solidarity. Indeed, for some — including a number of the speakers invited by the coalition Act Now to Stop War and End Racism, known as ANSWER, to speak outside the White House at a rally last week — the “anti-war” position all too easily collapses into supporting brutal regimes, like those of Syria and Iran, against violent U.S. regime change efforts.
This sort of rudimentary anti-imperialism, which finds heroes in any perceived target of scrambling U.S. hegemony, need not be our focus. Suffice it to say, an enemy’s enemy is not necessarily a friend.
The lesson here means recognizing, for instance, the way that Iranian citizens are oppressed and repressed by U.S. sanctions, which Trump is now worsening, and also by their own government. Mass protests across Iran against punishing cuts to fuel subsidies have been ongoing since November; the government has responded with internet blackouts and deadly anti-protest police and military violence. When working-class Iranian citizens and students are taking to the streets en masse to decry their government as a dictatorship, they are not inviting U.S. war-making and intervention, yet neither are they looking to American activists to express solidarity with Iranian state leadership.
In a recent n+1 essay, an Iranian journalist who, to protect their identity, goes by Matin told fellow journalist Nilo Tabrizy, upon hearing the announcement of three days of national mourning for Suleimani, “Iran was already in the middle of mourning those who’d been killed by our own government” during the recent unrest. There are ongoing and escalating anti-leadership protests in Tehran and other cities following the downing of a Ukrainian passenger plane by Iranian military missiles. The citizens of Iran, mobilizing to live in dignity and afford basic needs, are not best supported through hagiographies to the Iranian state. Anti-war solidarity must take a better form.
Win More Elections
Then there are legislative and electoral routes to which U.S. activists can commit energies, say by supporting a true, lifelong anti-war candidate like Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., for example. Sanders has pledged to cut Pentagon budgets and, crucially, situates his anti-war stance in the class politics around which his campaign is organized. Echoing the famous position of socialist Eugene V. Debs, Sanders noted last week that military conflict is waged by the ruling class but fought — and suffered through — by the working classes.
In terms of legislation, Sanders, alongside Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., last week introduced a bill to prohibit any funding for offensive military force in or against Iran without prior congressional authorization. Dozens of lawmakers have signed on and constituents can pressure their senators to take up this congressional limit on the erratic and reckless executive branch.
Yet it would be folly to wholly rely on progressive legislative plans to curtail U.S. war-making. Sanders and Khanna led efforts last year to similarly restrict military activity and end U.S. funding to Saudi Arabia’s devastating war in Yemen, only to see their measures stripped from the National Defense Authorization Act adopted with bipartisan support by Congress in December. The new bill may be doomed to the same fate and the administration’s ability to bypass Congress in matters of war, especially in the case of drone strikes, should not be underestimated.
More Than Marches: Direct Action
In an election year, it’s difficult to remember that the horizon of political engagement goes beyond the ballot box. At the same time, when it comes to anti-war activism, those of us who came of age during the Iraq War protests have no model or memory of effectual action. We continue to join big, placid marches to express political allegiances. Defanged histories of U.S. protest movements tell us that big marches are what resistance looks like, from the civil rights struggle to opposition against the Vietnam War.
A mass march today, organized through Facebook or Twitter, often represents the extent and limit, rather than the potential, of a movement to mobilize participants.
Mass marches remain an important means through which to find allies and build communities, but, as I and others have previously noted, bringing hundreds of thousands of people to a mass march half a century ago was much harder without the tools of social media. Great numbers back then demonstrated powerful underlying capacities: If they can organize this, what else can they do? Meanwhile a mass march today, organized through Facebook or Twitter, often represents the extent and limit, rather than the potential, of a movement to mobilize participants; the mobilization is rightly seen as no threat to power operating as usual.
It’s not easy to know what — facing the U.S. regime of surveillance capital and militarized policing — a protest movement could look like that would be capable of forcing the government’s hand against continued and further war-making. I offer here just one example, raised last week by theorist and author Joshua Clover in Commune Magazine (where I am an editor): “It’s puzzlingly easy to forget that the first and most decisive win against Trump administration policies, contesting the so-called Muslim ban, derived not from public marches but decisive and distributed infrastructure shutdowns.”
Protesters rally during a demonstration against the Muslim immigration ban at John F. Kennedy International Airport on Jan. 28, 2017, in New York City. Photo: Maite H. Mateo/Corbis/Getty Images
A Model For Action
On February 6, 2017, in immediate response to Trump’s announcement of the so-called Muslim ban on travel, thousands of protesters rushed to major U.S. airports. The mobilization began with just 30 people outside Terminal 4 of New York’s John F. Kennedy International Airport, where two Iraqis were being detained by Customs and Border Protection. By nightfall, the airport and others around the country were flooded with demonstrators; New York City taxi cabs refused to pick up or deliver passengers at Kennedy. And district judges in New York City, Massachusetts, Virginia, and Washington state had blocked parts of Trump’s executive order.
The success was temporary: The judges’ rulings were eventually overturned, and a slightly watered down but still racist and vicious travel ban was upheld by the Supreme Court. Leaks from the White House just days ago revealed plans to dramatically expand the travel ban to more countries’ citizens, although the reports did not reveal which countries. The lesson here is that there are no complete victories — at least not yet — but victories can be achieved nonetheless.
As it stands, the administration’s intolerable border policies constitute deadly aggressions against the very people with whom anti-war activists claim to be in solidarity, including Iranians, Iraqis, and Yemenis. After the recent elevation of conflict with Iran, The Intercept reported that dozens of Iranian families, including American citizens, were detained and questioned for hours at the U.S.-Canada border. Yet we who would march against war have not returned to airports and border stations en masse; we have not taken significant, focused aim against the U.S. deportation and border regime.
Any stand against U.S. imperialism need not wait for more military strikes against Iran to act. We must mobilize now to prioritize solidarity with the refugees that decades of U.S. war-waging has helped produce; any anti-war movement worth its salt must therefore be a movement for opening our borders too. The direct action that shut down airport functions that February day, briefly disrupting the infrastructure of Trump’s disgraceful foreign policy, is an example to remember and repeat. It is, to say the least, a place to start.


theintercept--2020-01-16--A Campaign Finance Rule Makes Life Much Harder for Working-Class Challengers

long for any candidate seeking to take on an entrenched incumbent , but the path to being financially competitive in a primary is particularly tough for those who dare run without an already built-in network of wealthy family , friends , and co-workers .
Though some new companies and organizations have entered the fray over the last few years to help working-class candidates more effectively compete — including a new political action committee launched this month by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez — the path to victory can be even harder for those candidates who can ’ t afford to dedicate all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal campaign guidelines , candidates running in a general election are permitted to use some of their campaign contributions to pay themselves salaries .
The rule , approved in 2002 by the Federal Election Commission , was intended specifically to make it easier for people who don ’ t come from vast wealth to quit their jobs and campaign .
“ Candidates of modest means too often have been crowded out of running for office , ” said Michael Toner , a Republican FEC commissioner who sponsored the measure .
He argued the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ blue-collar workers , school teachers , and others who don ’ t make six-figure salaries to run for office.
” As the New York Times reported at the time , the idea of letting candidates pay themselves a salary was actually originally put forth by Republicans , who resented Democrats ’ 40-year grip on the House of Representatives .
The GOP saw a salary as a way to enable people to challenge incumbents , who were largely Democrats .
It took years for the FEC to actually approve the measure though , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ game the system and run for office effectively to make a living .
A compromise was reached 18 years ago by putting limits on how much candidates could ultimately take : Candidates can pay themselves at a per-diem rate equal to the salary of the job they had before jumping in the race , or the salary of the office they are seeking — whichever is less .
( Today , members of Congress have starting salaries of $ 174,000 . )
These changes have made it easier for working and middle-class candidates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tlaib , a freshman congresswoman representing Michigan ’ s 13th District , paid herself $ 4,000 a month while campaigning in 2018 so that she could afford to work just seven hours a week as an attorney at her day job .
Jess King , a former Lancaster , Pennsylvania , nonprofit director , likewise paid herself a salary of about $ 3,800 a month so she could run for Congress full-time ; she was the only Pennsylvanian congressional candidate to do so .
Despite these rules , Congress has come nowhere near @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public , a problem especially acute as affluent Americans hold far more fiscally conservative views than the average American .
The average net worth of a member of Congress is over $ 500,000 , or approximately five times the median U.S. household net worth .
After Ocasio-Cortez was elected , the fact that she was working as a bartender for much of her campaign was treated as a huge novelty in Washington , and it is something conservatives frequently point to when lodging attacks .
on candidates who draw salaries makes campaigning particularly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rules , a candidate running for office can only start taking a salary once the filing deadline for entering the primary has passed .
These deadlines vary by state , but typically come just 2-4 months before the primary election .
This type of rule made more sense before the surge of money in politics that has taken place over the last 15 years , which has led to campaign seasons starting earlier and earlier .
Mckayla Wilkes , a 29-year-old primary challenger taking on House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer in Maryland ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ January 24 , the date of Maryland ’ s primary ballot access deadline .
Wilkes — a mother of two , a part-time student , and a full-time federal contractor — has been running for Congress since late March .
But due to her inability to work without pay and the FEC rules , Wilkes has had to campaign all year while still working her 9-to-5 job .
A typical day for Wilkes looks like this : She shows up every morning to her job as an administrative assistant for the Department of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ desk during her lunch break to do campaign interviews , and takes more calls and interviews on her way to pick up her kids from school and day care .
She drives her children home , cooks dinner , and does call time to raise money from 7 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. She ’ s not allowed to talk about her campaign with co-workers at the office and outside of her lunch break , she ’ s not allowed to leave her desk to deal with any campaign-related emergencies .
“ It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ basically like having two or three jobs , if you count me being a parent , ” she said .
“ But I don ’ t have a choice but to work my regular job too , because I am a regular person running for Congress and so I have to provide for my family while also fighting for the future.
” To start drawing a salary on January 24 , Wilkes will have to first prove her income from last year , which means filing her taxes months ahead of the April @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hammering people trying to get my W-2s , my 1099s , which has been a hassle because most times employers don ’ t even send those out until the end of January , ” she said .
Wilkes will quit her day job once she can start taking a salary .
Once she has the ability to campaign full-time , she said , she ’ ll be able to run more effectively .
“ It will change things drastically for me , ” she said .
“ It will also hopefully give me @ @ @ @ @ @ @ balance.
” She does not have much time : Maryland ’ s Democratic primary is on April 28 .
Her campaign has raised approximately $ 130,000 so far , though December was their biggest fundraising month yet where they pulled in about $ 25,000 .
Hoyer , who has been in Congress since 1981 , has already raised over $ 2 million .
, also facing the financial squeeze of campaigning , are finding other ways to scrape by during the primary .
Jamaal Bowman , who ’ s endorsed by the progressive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Foreign Affairs Chair Eliot Engel in the primary for New York ’ s 16th Congressional District .
Bowman announced he was running in June , and for the first six months of his campaign , he also continued to work full-time at a Bronx-based middle school where he ’ s long served as principal .
During that time , Bowman would try to make both jobs work .
He ’ d canvass at a train station from 6:30-7 in the morning , then go to work from 8 a.m. until 3:30 p.m. After @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do call time for a few hours until 6:30 or 7:30 p.m. , and then go to a house party or a meet-and-greet at someone ’ s home until 9:30 .
On weekends , he would spend 6-12 hours doing campaign work , meaning he never really got a day off .
Bowman resigned from his principal position on January 1 , but he does not plan to take a salary from his campaign coffers , saying he wants to keep the money he ’ s able to raise going toward staff and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wanted to , he wouldn ’ t be able to draw a salary until April 2 , which is New York ’ s candidate filing deadline .
( The state ’ s congressional primary is on June 23 . )
To make it work , Bowman has opted instead to drain some of his retirement savings and to take out a personal loan .
“ I have a son in college , a daughter in day care , I have a mortgage , and both my wife and I have student loans , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So it is a huge , huge sacrifice to run .
But when you work 20 years in public schools , and when you see the systematic oppression the kids you serve face on a daily basis , and when you yourself come from that oppression , it gets to the point where enough is enough.
” Bowman said he hopes the few extra hours in the day he has now will give him more time to spend with his family , which “ keeps me fulfilled , inspired , and going.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taking on Rep. Henry Cuellar in Texas ’ s 28th Congressional District , is also figuring out how to navigate these financial challenges .
When she was deciding whether to run , Cisneros was working as an attorney at a legal nonprofit .
“ I knew I ’ d have to quit my job if I ran because there was just no way I could do right by my clients and do right by the people supporting my campaign , ” she told The Intercept .
She said the first thing she worried @ @ @ @ @ @ @ followed closely by the fact that quitting would mean losing her health insurance .
Cisneros lives at home with her parents , had a couple thousand dollars in savings , and decided this risk was one she was willing to take .
“ I didn ’ t save a ton , but it ’ s been enough for me to avoid having to take a stipend from the campaign , ” she said .
To this day , Cisneros has no health insurance .
Although she could be drawing a campaign salary at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ filing deadline is December 9 , and their primary is on March 3 — she ’ s made the decision to direct all her money to campaign expenses .
Her campaign raised $ 513,000 in the last fundraising quarter , bringing her campaign ’ s total haul to nearly $ 1 million .
Cuellar has not yet posted his latest fundraising figures , but had raised just over $ 1 million by the end of September .
Cisneros acknowledges that as tough as everything is , there are some advantages to being a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ If it ’ s difficult for me as someone who just has to worry about her own expenses , I can only imagine how many amazing candidates there are out there with potential who just financially are not in a position to run.
” These and other candidates , who have all also sworn off corporate PAC money , say there ’ s a reason Congress has been so slow to enact campaign finance reform .
“ The rich have built an economic system to maintain their wealth and power , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent of Congress are millionaires , ” said Bowman .
“ This system is rigged , and that ’ s what we ’ re fighting to change .
”

The odds are long for any candidate seeking to take on an entrenched incumbent, but the path to being financially competitive in a primary is particularly tough for those who dare run without an already built-in network of wealthy family, friends, and co-workers. Though some new companies and organizations have entered the fray over the last few years to help working-class candidates more effectively compete — including a new political action committee launched this month by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez — the path to victory can be even harder for those candidates who can’t afford to dedicate all of their time to campaigning.
Under federal campaign guidelines, candidates running in a general election are permitted to use some of their campaign contributions to pay themselves salaries. The rule, approved in 2002 by the Federal Election Commission, was intended specifically to make it easier for people who don’t come from vast wealth to quit their jobs and campaign.
“Candidates of modest means too often have been crowded out of running for office,” said Michael Toner, a Republican FEC commissioner who sponsored the measure. He argued the new rule “could help people like blue-collar workers, school teachers, and others who don’t make six-figure salaries to run for office.”
“Candidates of modest means too often have been crowded out of running for office.”
As the New York Times reported at the time, the idea of letting candidates pay themselves a salary was actually originally put forth by Republicans, who resented Democrats’ 40-year grip on the House of Representatives. The GOP saw a salary as a way to enable people to challenge incumbents, who were largely Democrats. It took years for the FEC to actually approve the measure though, as commissioners long worried that candidates would just game the system and run for office effectively to make a living. A compromise was reached 18 years ago by putting limits on how much candidates could ultimately take: Candidates can pay themselves at a per-diem rate equal to the salary of the job they had before jumping in the race, or the salary of the office they are seeking — whichever is less. (Today, members of Congress have starting salaries of $174,000.)
These changes have made it easier for working and middle-class candidates to run for office. Rep. Rashida Tlaib, a freshman congresswoman representing Michigan’s 13th District, paid herself $4,000 a month while campaigning in 2018 so that she could afford to work just seven hours a week as an attorney at her day job. Jess King, a former Lancaster, Pennsylvania, nonprofit director, likewise paid herself a salary of about $3,800 a month so she could run for Congress full-time; she was the only Pennsylvanian congressional candidate to do so.
Despite these rules, Congress has come nowhere near reflecting the socioeconomic diversity of the American public, a problem especially acute as affluent Americans hold far more fiscally conservative views than the average American. The average net worth of a member of Congress is over $500,000, or approximately five times the median U.S. household net worth. After Ocasio-Cortez was elected, the fact that she was working as a bartender for much of her campaign was treated as a huge novelty in Washington, and it is something conservatives frequently point to when lodging attacks.
Another FEC restriction on candidates who draw salaries makes campaigning particularly tough for primary challengers. Under the rules, a candidate running for office can only start taking a salary once the filing deadline for entering the primary has passed. These deadlines vary by state, but typically come just 2-4 months before the primary election. This type of rule made more sense before the surge of money in politics that has taken place over the last 15 years, which has led to campaign seasons starting earlier and earlier.
Mckayla Wilkes, a 29-year-old primary challenger taking on House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer in Maryland’s 5th District, is anxiously awaiting January 24, the date of Maryland’s primary ballot access deadline. Wilkes — a mother of two, a part-time student, and a full-time federal contractor — has been running for Congress since late March. But due to her inability to work without pay and the FEC rules, Wilkes has had to campaign all year while still working her 9-to-5 job.
“I don’t have a choice but to work my regular job too, because I am a regular person running for Congress and so I have to provide for my family while also fighting for the future.”
A typical day for Wilkes looks like this: She shows up every morning to her job as an administrative assistant for the Department of Defense. She steps away from her desk during her lunch break to do campaign interviews, and takes more calls and interviews on her way to pick up her kids from school and day care. She drives her children home, cooks dinner, and does call time to raise money from 7 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. She’s not allowed to talk about her campaign with co-workers at the office and outside of her lunch break, she’s not allowed to leave her desk to deal with any campaign-related emergencies.
“It’s really tough; it’s basically like having two or three jobs, if you count me being a parent,” she said. “But I don’t have a choice but to work my regular job too, because I am a regular person running for Congress and so I have to provide for my family while also fighting for the future.”
To start drawing a salary on January 24, Wilkes will have to first prove her income from last year, which means filing her taxes months ahead of the April deadline. “I have been just hammering people trying to get my W-2s, my 1099s, which has been a hassle because most times employers don’t even send those out until the end of January,” she said.
Wilkes will quit her day job once she can start taking a salary. Once she has the ability to campaign full-time, she said, she’ll be able to run more effectively. “It will change things drastically for me,” she said. “It will also hopefully give me a little bit more of a work-life balance.”
She does not have much time: Maryland’s Democratic primary is on April 28. Her campaign has raised approximately $130,000 so far, though December was their biggest fundraising month yet where they pulled in about $25,000. Hoyer, who has been in Congress since 1981, has already raised over $2 million.
Other working-class candidates , also facing the financial squeeze of campaigning, are finding other ways to scrape by during the primary.
Jamaal Bowman, who’s endorsed by the progressive group Justice Democrats, is challenging House Foreign Affairs Chair Eliot Engel in the primary for New York’s 16th Congressional District. Bowman announced he was running in June, and for the first six months of his campaign, he also continued to work full-time at a Bronx-based middle school where he’s long served as principal.
During that time, Bowman would try to make both jobs work. He’d canvass at a train station from 6:30-7 in the morning, then go to work from 8 a.m. until 3:30 p.m. After school, he’d leave to do call time for a few hours until 6:30 or 7:30 p.m., and then go to a house party or a meet-and-greet at someone’s home until 9:30. On weekends, he would spend 6-12 hours doing campaign work, meaning he never really got a day off.
Bowman resigned from his principal position on January 1, but he does not plan to take a salary from his campaign coffers, saying he wants to keep the money he’s able to raise going toward staff and other campaign expenses. Even if he wanted to, he wouldn’t be able to draw a salary until April 2, which is New York’s candidate filing deadline. (The state’s congressional primary is on June 23.) To make it work, Bowman has opted instead to drain some of his retirement savings and to take out a personal loan.
“I have a son in college, a daughter in day care, I have a mortgage, and both my wife and I have student loans,” he told The Intercept. “So it is a huge, huge sacrifice to run. But when you work 20 years in public schools, and when you see the systematic oppression the kids you serve face on a daily basis, and when you yourself come from that oppression, it gets to the point where enough is enough.” Bowman said he hopes the few extra hours in the day he has now will give him more time to spend with his family, which “keeps me fulfilled, inspired, and going.”
Jessica Cisneros, the 26-year-old progressive challenger taking on Rep. Henry Cuellar in Texas’s 28th Congressional District, is also figuring out how to navigate these financial challenges.
“I can only imagine how many amazing candidates there are out there with potential who just financially are not in a position to run.”
When she was deciding whether to run, Cisneros was working as an attorney at a legal nonprofit. “I knew I’d have to quit my job if I ran because there was just no way I could do right by my clients and do right by the people supporting my campaign,” she told The Intercept. She said the first thing she worried about was her student loan payments, followed closely by the fact that quitting would mean losing her health insurance.
Cisneros lives at home with her parents, had a couple thousand dollars in savings, and decided this risk was one she was willing to take. “I didn’t save a ton, but it’s been enough for me to avoid having to take a stipend from the campaign,” she said. To this day, Cisneros has no health insurance.
Although she could be drawing a campaign salary at this point — Texas’s candidate filing deadline is December 9, and their primary is on March 3 — she’s made the decision to direct all her money to campaign expenses. Her campaign raised $513,000 in the last fundraising quarter, bringing her campaign’s total haul to nearly $1 million. Cuellar has not yet posted his latest fundraising figures, but had raised just over $1 million by the end of September.
Cisneros acknowledges that as tough as everything is, there are some advantages to being a single young woman with no dependents. “If it’s difficult for me as someone who just has to worry about her own expenses, I can only imagine how many amazing candidates there are out there with potential who just financially are not in a position to run.”
These and other candidates, who have all also sworn off corporate PAC money, say there’s a reason Congress has been so slow to enact campaign finance reform.
“The rich have built an economic system to maintain their wealth and power, and there’s a reason why 50 percent of Congress are millionaires,” said Bowman. “This system is rigged, and that’s what we’re fighting to change.”


theintercept--2020-01-16--Key Architect of 2003 Iraq War Is Now a Key Architect of Trump Iran Policy

a longtime advocate of war with Iraq in the Bush administration .
Eventually , he got what he wanted , and it was a total disaster .
Now , Wurmser again has the ear of a president — this time , Donald Trump — and his sights are set firmly on Iran .
An influential neoconservative in President George W. Bush ’ s White House who became a significant force behind the push for war with Iraq in 2003 , Wurmser has recently been serving as an informal adviser to the Trump administration , according to new reporting from Bloomberg @ @ @ @ @ @ @ helped make the case for the recent drone strike that assassinated Iranian Gen. Qassim Suleimani .
Wurmser wrote several memos to then-national security adviser John Bolton in May and June of 2019 .
In the documents , according to Bloomberg , Wurmser argued that aggressive action by the U.S. — such as the killing of Suleimani — would , in Wurmser ’ s words , “ rattle the delicate internal balance of forces and the control over them upon which the [ Iranian ] regime depends for stability and survival.
” The significance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while it was already clear that the neoconservative movement has powerfully influenced the Trump administration , Wurmser ’ s role on Iran is further evidence of the sway that neoconservatism still holds on the U.S. right — despite the catastrophic invasion of Iraq and Trump ’ s disavowal of the war .
Second , it demonstrates that neoconservatives such as Wurmser still cherish a peculiar theory about Iranian society .
After Bush ’ s reelection in 2005 , the hard-right faction of his administration turned its attention to Iran .
These officials had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republic , but now some of them believed that a full-scale invasion would not be necessary to bring this about .
A 2005 article in the New Yorker by Seymour Hersh quoted a government consultant who described the perspective of these officials as being that a bombing campaign against Iran ’ s nuclear facilities would spur a revolution led by “ secular nationalists and reformers.
” The consultant summarized their view : “ The minute the aura of invincibility which the mullahs enjoy is shattered , and with it the ability to hoodwink @ @ @ @ @ @ @ collapse.
” Wurmser ’ s outlook seems not to have changed one bit .
In his memos to Bolton , he wrote that the U.S. will not need “ boots on the ground ” because “ Iranians would both be impressed and potentially encouraged by a targeted attack on symbols of repression.
” This theory , so popular among neoconservatives , has always been bizarre : Nations generally become more right-wing when under attack .
For instance , after the destruction of the World Trade Center in 2001 , Americans did not demand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ move into the Oval Office .
We should definitely consider the possibility that the neocons don ’ t know what they ’ re talking about .
And yet , here we are , with those self-same neocons again helping shape our foreign policy in delusional and dangerous ways .
of neoconservatives like Wurmser is particularly odd given how all their beliefs were proven disastrously wrong in Iraq .
Wurmser holds a Ph.D. in international affairs and worked for the AIPAC-spinoff Washington Institute for Near East Policy in the mid-1990s .
In 1996 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ behind a policy document titled “ A Clean Break : A New Strategy for Securing the Realm ” that was prepared by an Israeli think tank for then-incoming Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ’ s government in 1996 .
The paper called for Israel to engage in preemptive attacks on its perceived foes and a “ focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq.
” In 1999 , Wurmser wrote a book titled “ Tyranny ’ s Ally : America ’ s Failure to Defeat Saddam Hussein , ” which was pretty much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , biological , and even nuclear weapons are the pillars of Saddam ’ s regime , ” Wurmser said , adding that “ the menace from Saddam ’ s Iraq will continue to grow ” if the U.S. did not remove him from power .
After the September 11 attacks , Wurmser was appointed to a two-man intelligence unit by then-Defense Undersecretary Douglas Feith .
( Feith is perhaps best known for being referred to as “ the fucking stupidest guy on the face of the earth ” by Gen. Tommy Franks , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) Among Wurmser ’ s ideas was for the U.S. to respond to Al Qaeda by , as the 9/11 Commission later put it , hitting a “ non-Al Qaeda target like Iraq.
” Wurmser then became a senior adviser to Bolton , who at that point was an undersecretary at the State Department and one of the most vociferous champions of a regime change war with Iraq .
Eventually , Wurmser and company got what they wanted , and the U.S. led an invasion of Iraq in March 2003 .
At that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ neoconservatives collided with reality , and reality won .
Hundreds of thousands of people died , the lives of millions have been blighted , and the entire region will be in flames for the indefinite future .
In a 2007 interview , however , Wurmser continued to defend the decision to go to war , though he did question the Bush administration ’ s rhetorical emphasis on democracy in Iraq .
“ I ’ m not a big fan of democracy per se , ” he said , “ I ’ m a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remember the difference .
Freedom must precede democracy by a long , long time.
” In the same interview , he stated that if the U.S. failed to “ trigger a fundamental change in behavior ” by Iran ’ s leaders that America might “ have to think seriously about going directly into Iran.
” In any case , nothing in the past 17 years seems to have made much of an impression on Wurmser ; he still maintains a belief in his own skill at precisely calibrated global strategy .
Nor has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prevented him from having the ear of the people who operate America ’ s killer drones .
Notably , the article about Wurmser ’ s current accomplishments , by neoconservative Bloomberg journalist Eli Lake , does not mention any of Wurmser ’ s unfortunate history .
Wurmser did not immediately respond to a request for comment .

David Wurmser was a longtime advocate of war with Iraq in the Bush administration. Eventually, he got what he wanted, and it was a total disaster. Now, Wurmser again has the ear of a president — this time, Donald Trump — and his sights are set firmly on Iran.
An influential neoconservative in President George W. Bush’s White House who became a significant force behind the push for war with Iraq in 2003, Wurmser has recently been serving as an informal adviser to the Trump administration, according to new reporting from Bloomberg News. In that capacity, Wurmser helped make the case for the recent drone strike that assassinated Iranian Gen. Qassim Suleimani.
David Wurmser again has the ear of a president — this time, Donald Trump — and his sights are set firmly on Iran.
Wurmser wrote several memos to then-national security adviser John Bolton in May and June of 2019. In the documents, according to Bloomberg, Wurmser argued that aggressive action by the U.S. — such as the killing of Suleimani — would, in Wurmser’s words, “rattle the delicate internal balance of forces and the control over them upon which the [Iranian] regime depends for stability and survival.”
The significance of this is two-fold. First, while it was already clear that the neoconservative movement has powerfully influenced the Trump administration, Wurmser’s role on Iran is further evidence of the sway that neoconservatism still holds on the U.S. right — despite the catastrophic invasion of Iraq and Trump’s disavowal of the war. Second, it demonstrates that neoconservatives such as Wurmser still cherish a peculiar theory about Iranian society.
After Bush’s reelection in 2005, the hard-right faction of his administration turned its attention to Iran. These officials had always wanted regime change in the Islamic Republic, but now some of them believed that a full-scale invasion would not be necessary to bring this about. A 2005 article in the New Yorker by Seymour Hersh quoted a government consultant who described the perspective of these officials as being that a bombing campaign against Iran’s nuclear facilities would spur a revolution led by “secular nationalists and reformers.” The consultant summarized their view: “The minute the aura of invincibility which the mullahs enjoy is shattered, and with it the ability to hoodwink the West, the Iranian regime will collapse.”
Wurmser’s outlook seems not to have changed one bit. In his memos to Bolton, he wrote that the U.S. will not need “boots on the ground” because “Iranians would both be impressed and potentially encouraged by a targeted attack on symbols of repression.”
This theory, so popular among neoconservatives, has always been bizarre: Nations generally become more right-wing when under attack. For instance, after the destruction of the World Trade Center in 2001, Americans did not demand that Bush be impeached and Dennis Kucinich move into the Oval Office.
We should definitely consider the possibility that the neocons don’t know what they’re talking about. And yet, here we are, with those self-same neocons again helping shape our foreign policy in delusional and dangerous ways.
The continued self-confidence of neoconservatives like Wurmser is particularly odd given how all their beliefs were proven disastrously wrong in Iraq.
Wurmser holds a Ph.D. in international affairs and worked for the AIPAC-spinoff Washington Institute for Near East Policy in the mid-1990s. In 1996, he was one of the main thinkers behind a policy document titled “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm” that was prepared by an Israeli think tank for then-incoming Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government in 1996. The paper called for Israel to engage in preemptive attacks on its perceived foes and a “focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq.”
In 1999, Wurmser wrote a book titled “Tyranny’s Ally: America’s Failure to Defeat Saddam Hussein,” which was pretty much what it sounds like. “Chemical, biological, and even nuclear weapons are the pillars of Saddam’s regime,” Wurmser said, adding that “the menace from Saddam’s Iraq will continue to grow” if the U.S. did not remove him from power.
After the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the purported wishes of the neoconservatives collided with reality, and reality won.
After the September 11 attacks, Wurmser was appointed to a two-man intelligence unit by then-Defense Undersecretary Douglas Feith. (Feith is perhaps best known for being referred to as “the fucking stupidest guy on the face of the earth” by Gen. Tommy Franks, who led the invasion of Iraq.) Among Wurmser’s ideas was for the U.S. to respond to Al Qaeda by, as the 9/11 Commission later put it, hitting a “non-Al Qaeda target like Iraq.”
Wurmser then became a senior adviser to Bolton, who at that point was an undersecretary at the State Department and one of the most vociferous champions of a regime change war with Iraq.
Eventually, Wurmser and company got what they wanted, and the U.S. led an invasion of Iraq in March 2003. At that point, the purported wishes of the neoconservatives collided with reality, and reality won. Hundreds of thousands of people died, the lives of millions have been blighted, and the entire region will be in flames for the indefinite future.
In a 2007 interview, however, Wurmser continued to defend the decision to go to war, though he did question the Bush administration’s rhetorical emphasis on democracy in Iraq. “I’m not a big fan of democracy per se,” he said, “I’m a fan of freedom and one has to remember the difference. Freedom must precede democracy by a long, long time.” In the same interview, he stated that if the U.S. failed to “trigger a fundamental change in behavior” by Iran’s leaders that America might “have to think seriously about going directly into Iran.”
In any case, nothing in the past 17 years seems to have made much of an impression on Wurmser; he still maintains a belief in his own skill at precisely calibrated global strategy. Nor has this past calamitous decade and a half prevented him from having the ear of the people who operate America’s killer drones. Notably, the article about Wurmser’s current accomplishments, by neoconservative Bloomberg journalist Eli Lake, does not mention any of Wurmser’s unfortunate history.
Wurmser did not immediately respond to a request for comment.


theintercept--2020-01-16--Pete Buttigieg’s Campaign Used Notoriously Low-Paying Gig-Work Platform for Polling

The campaign ’ s use of an exploitative platform like MTurk is in sharp contrast with the way Buttigieg has cast himself as a pro-worker candidate .
He has been outspoken about the need for labor protections for those in the gig economy , whom companies often misclassify as independent contractors rather than employees in order to skirt labor protections .
He has proposed several measures that would achieve better labor standards for gig workers , including a $ 15 minimum wage , cracking down on payroll fraud that lists gig workers as independent contractors , and ending right-to-work laws @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for “ polling ” in August and September , according to Federal Election Commission records .
MTurk allows a job requester to post the type of task they want completed and a price they ’ ll pay for it ( the site allows payments as low as 1 cent ) .
It is unclear from the FEC records how much the campaign paid per survey .
A campaign spokesperson said they took steps to ensure participants were paid above the minimum wage for surveys that lasted 2-3 minutes , but would not specify @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The presidential campaign of former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg spent $ 20,000 over the summer hiring gig workers through the platform Amazon Mechanical Turk , or MTurk , one of the most controversial actors in the gig-working space .
Studies have found gig workers at the company are paid far below minimum wage , even though many on the platform work full-time .
This past weekend , at a culinary union ’ s town hall in Las Vegas , Buttigieg told the audience , “ If you ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ m concerned , you ’ re doing a gig , you ’ re working .
And if you ’ re working , that makes you a worker , and if you ’ re a worker , you deserve protections .
We are going to make sure gig workers have the chance to organize and unionize , too.
” In August , Buttigieg joined gig workers to rally outside of Uber ’ s headquarters in support of a California law that aimed to crack down on exploitation .
But workers on MTurk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which is owned by Amazon , and do not have any labor or wage protections , nor do they have the freedom to join a union .
Workers there tried to form a union in 2014 and Amazon , which collects a 20 percent fee per “ worker reward , ” squashed the effort .
While exploitation is rampant in the gig economy , MTurk has been identified as one of the worst offenders by journalists and researchers .
MTurk workers can perform “ mind-numbing tasks for hours on end , sometimes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Alana Semuels wrote last January in The Atlantic in a piece titled , “ The Internet Is Enabling a New Kind of Poorly Paid Hell.
” Companies like MTurk , Semuels wrote , may inadvertently end up targeting vulnerable individuals because they provide quick , easy work that can be done remotely and without requesters on the site having to expend resources on vetting workers .
“ Requesters use Mechanical Turk because they can farm out menial work on the cheap and get that work done quickly , ” Semuels wrote .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ done for money on the side by people with a surplus of idle time .
But a growing number of people are turning to platforms like Mechanical Turk for the bulk of their income , despite the fact that the work pays terribly .
It ’ s emblematic of the state of the economy in certain regions of the country that some people consider this type of work to be their only choice.
” Requesters can also reject work if it doesn ’ t meet their standards , a subjective decision that means @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they spend time on a task .
In several reviews of MTurk on Glassdoor , current and former employees confirm the minimal pay .
Some tasks are paid “ around 10 cents per minute or 6 dollars an hour if you know the tricks , ” wrote one reviewer .
“ The pay sucks , ” another reviewer wrote .
“ It ’ s way less than minimum wage.
” Under “ advice to management , ” they wrote , “ pay at least min wage in the US.
” The use of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign did , has proven controversial among academics who rely on survey responses for their research .
“ Perhaps most problematic , is the ethical quandary of employed , tenured academics exploiting low-wage work by people at the opposite end of the pay and job security scale , ” wrote technology writer and researcher Alexandra Samuel in JSTOR Daily , in an essay subtitled , “ Online services like Amazon ’ s ‘ Mechanical Turk ’ have ushered in a golden age in survey research .
But is it ethical for researchers to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ respond to a request for comment .
The Buttigieg campaign is not the first to take advantage of contemporary labor practices to the benefit of its campaign .
Last month , The Intercept reported that Mike Bloomberg ’ s campaign was exploiting prison labor to make phone calls , a relationship the campaign ended following questions from The Intercept .
The Intercept could find no evidence that any other campaign was using MTurk , though it ’ s not uncommon to find Uber or Lyft expenditures in FEC reports .
Last year , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the campaign was using Airbnb for lodging and Amazon for office supplies .

The presidential campaign of former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg spent $20,000 over the summer hiring gig workers through the platform Amazon Mechanical Turk, or MTurk, one of the most controversial actors in the gig-working space. Studies have found gig workers at the company are paid far below minimum wage, even though many on the platform work full-time.
The Buttigieg campaign contracted with MTurk for “polling” in August and September, according to Federal Election Commission records. MTurk allows a job requester to post the type of task they want completed and a price they’ll pay for it (the site allows payments as low as 1 cent). It is unclear from the FEC records how much the campaign paid per survey. A campaign spokesperson said they took steps to ensure participants were paid above the minimum wage for surveys that lasted 2-3 minutes, but would not specify how much the participants were paid.
The campaign’s use of an exploitative platform like MTurk is in sharp contrast with the way Buttigieg has cast himself as a pro-worker candidate. He has been outspoken about the need for labor protections for those in the gig economy, whom companies often misclassify as independent contractors rather than employees in order to skirt labor protections. He has proposed several measures that would achieve better labor standards for gig workers, including a $15 minimum wage, cracking down on payroll fraud that lists gig workers as independent contractors, and ending right-to-work laws.
This past weekend, at a culinary union’s town hall in Las Vegas, Buttigieg told the audience, “If you’re a gig worker, as far as I’m concerned, you’re doing a gig, you’re working. And if you’re working, that makes you a worker, and if you’re a worker, you deserve protections. We are going to make sure gig workers have the chance to organize and unionize, too.” In August, Buttigieg joined gig workers to rally outside of Uber’s headquarters in support of a California law that aimed to crack down on exploitation.
But workers on MTurk are not considered employees by the company, which is owned by Amazon, and do not have any labor or wage protections, nor do they have the freedom to join a union. Workers there tried to form a union in 2014 and Amazon, which collects a 20 percent fee per “worker reward,” squashed the effort.
While exploitation is rampant in the gig economy, MTurk has been identified as one of the worst offenders by journalists and researchers. MTurk workers can perform “mind-numbing tasks for hours on end, sometimes earning just pennies per job,” Alana Semuels wrote last January in The Atlantic in a piece titled, “The Internet Is Enabling a New Kind of Poorly Paid Hell.” Companies like MTurk, Semuels wrote, may inadvertently end up targeting vulnerable individuals because they provide quick, easy work that can be done remotely and without requesters on the site having to expend resources on vetting workers. “Requesters use Mechanical Turk because they can farm out menial work on the cheap and get that work done quickly,” Semuels wrote. “They may seem like one-off jobs, done for money on the side by people with a surplus of idle time. But a growing number of people are turning to platforms like Mechanical Turk for the bulk of their income, despite the fact that the work pays terribly. It’s emblematic of the state of the economy in certain regions of the country that some people consider this type of work to be their only choice.” Requesters can also reject work if it doesn’t meet their standards, a subjective decision that means workers risk not being paid even if they spend time on a task.
In several reviews of MTurk on Glassdoor, current and former employees confirm the minimal pay. Some tasks are paid “around 10 cents per minute or 6 dollars an hour if you know the tricks,” wrote one reviewer. “The pay sucks,” another reviewer wrote. “It’s way less than minimum wage.” Under “advice to management,” they wrote, “pay at least min wage in the US.”
The use of MTurk for polling, as the Buttigieg campaign did, has proven controversial among academics who rely on survey responses for their research. “Perhaps most problematic, is the ethical quandary of employed, tenured academics exploiting low-wage work by people at the opposite end of the pay and job security scale,” wrote technology writer and researcher Alexandra Samuel in JSTOR Daily, in an essay subtitled, “Online services like Amazon’s ‘Mechanical Turk’ have ushered in a golden age in survey research. But is it ethical for researchers to use them?”
Amazon did not respond to a request for comment.
The Buttigieg campaign is not the first to take advantage of contemporary labor practices to the benefit of its campaign. Last month, The Intercept reported that Mike Bloomberg’s campaign was exploiting prison labor to make phone calls, a relationship the campaign ended following questions from The Intercept. The Intercept could find no evidence that any other campaign was using MTurk, though it’s not uncommon to find Uber or Lyft expenditures in FEC reports. Last year, some staffers for Sen. Bernie Sanders complained that the campaign was using Airbnb for lodging and Amazon for office supplies.


theintercept--2020-01-16--Trump Banished Immigration Rights Activist for Speaking Out. He’s Suing ICE to Come Back.

immigration rights activist who was deported by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in 2018 filed a lawsuit in federal court in Brooklyn on Thursday morning , alleging that he was targeted for deportation because of his political speech .
Jean Montrevil said his removal from the U.S. was in violation of his First Amendment rights and demanded that the government return him to his home in New York from Haiti .
The suit brought by Montrevil , 51 , a founding member of the New Sanctuary Coalition of New York City , builds on a significant ruling last spring by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the case of a former colleague , activist Ravi Ragbir .
In Ragbir ’ s case , the court found that ICE ’ s moves against Ragbir in early 2018 were intended as retaliation for Ragbir ’ s political speech and thus , violated his rights under the First Amendment .
Ragbir ’ s suit revolved around surveillance , intimidation , and an attempted deportation foiled only by an emergency court order , all in January 2018 .
Montrevil ’ s record of being threatened for his activism goes back further , stretching @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was able to narrowly escape deportation , Montrevil was not — in large part , he alleges , because of an elaborate and carefully planned conspiracy of official lies and misconduct that deprived him of access to courts , his lawyer , and his due-process rights just long enough to get him on a plane out of the country .
“ Since 2005 , Jean was , like nearly a million other people , living under an order of supervision , which allowed him to live in the U.S. with authorization , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advocates representing Montrevil .
“ It ’ s only once he began speaking out as an activist that his real problems with ICE began.
” Montrevil ’ s friends and family describe the trajectory of his life as precisely the sort of story of redemption and growth that is demanded of people convicted of crimes .
They say his adult life was characterized by the industry , community building , and love that this country valorizes in its immigrants .
In their eyes , Montrevil ’ s deportation is a double-jeopardy punishment for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for .
Even more troublingly , it is punishment for daring to raise his voice to call attention to the violence and injustice of America ’ s immigration enforcement apparatus .
Montrevil ’ s lawsuit is seeking to make the court recognize what seems plain to many who have followed his case : that his deportation was , at its essence , political — the literal banishment of a dissident who challenged the government too often and too loudly .
New York legally in 1986 , at the age of 17 , when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ official living in Brooklyn , obtained a green card for him .
For Montrevil , who had grown up fending for himself in Port-au-Prince , the transition to living under the stern authority of his father was difficult .
“ It was a bit of a shock , ” Montrevil told The Intercept from Port-au-Prince .
“ He was very tough , you know , ex-military .
It was hard for me to get along with him .
Looking back , I blame myself for not listening.
” Montrevil ran away from home @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in with the wrong crowd .
Over a two-year period , he racked up convictions for drug possession with intent to distribute in Virginia , a gun possession misdemeanor in New York , and a federal drug possession conviction in New Jersey .
In jail awaiting trial on his Virginia charges , Montrevil got in a fight , leading to further charges .
In 1989 , with the war on drugs in high gear , mandatory-minimum sentences dictated meting out lengthy prison stays .
At the age of 21 , Montrevil was staring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legal permanent resident , his convictions also made him deportable .
When he was released on probation in 2000 , Montrevil was 32 and determined to lead a different life .
He took up management of a religious goods shop in Flatbush , Brooklyn .
He met Jani Cauthen , a public-school aide , and they got married and had children .
He scrupulously kept to the terms of his probation and checked in regularly for his scheduled appointments with immigration authorities .
He volunteered with HIV patients through his church .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , an organization that offers support to detained immigrants and their families .
Juan Carlos Ruiz , a Lutheran minister and immigration activist , met Montrevil through his work with Families for Freedom , and invited him in 2006 to help found what would become the New Sanctuary Coalition of New York City .
Where Families for Freedom focuses its work on serving people caught up in the machinery of deportation , the New Sanctuary Coalition would be more outward-facing , more political , and more high-profile .
“ Jean didn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of course , he was concerned about the risks of becoming a public face of the movement , ” Ruiz said .
Those concerns proved well-founded .
As Montrevil ’ s new role put him in the media spotlight , ICE responded with what he took to be retaliation .
Within a year , the agency enrolled him in the Intensive Supervision Appearance Program , or ISAP , which was more ordinarily reserved for people who had failed to keep their scheduled check-ins or were otherwise considered a flight risk .
Montrevil was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ check in with ICE three times a week , and keep a curfew of 7 p.m. to 7 a.m .
Though most people at the time were placed on ISAP for short periods of time , Montrevil was kept on the program for nearly a year .
The curfew crippled his new business , using a van to drive customers to airports or visit relatives upstate .
The electronic shackle irritated his skin , leaving scars that he still wears today .
ICE was definitely aware of his political activism , Montrevil said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as he was taken into custody as a prelude to deportation , an ICE officer referred to his media profile , calling Montrevil the “ one complaining to the Village Voice.
” As Montrevil waited in a Pennsylvania prison , his family , church , and supporters rallied round him , flooding ICE ’ s New York Field Office phone lines and getting themselves arrested in noisy protests outside .
“ There ’ s no question in my mind that Jean was being targeted for speaking out , ” the pastor of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Donna Schaper , said .
Montrevil was ultimately released , but he was given a stern warning from high up .
In an unusual step , Christopher Shanahan , then the director of ICE ’ s New York City Field Office , met with Montrevil , Schaper , and Montrevil ’ s lawyer , Joshua Bardavid .
“ This can ’ t happen again , ” Shanahan said , according to Schaper .
If Montrevil would agree to lay low , Schaper said Shanahan told them , he wouldn ’ t have any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even told him that if he kept his head down , the ICE New York director would himself look into getting Montrevil deferred-action status , giving him lasting protection from deportation .
The Intercept could not reach Shanahan for comment by the time of publication .
Rachael Yong Yow , a spokesperson for the ICE division that encompasses New York City , denied that Montrevil was targeted because of his activism , citing his convictions on multiple felony charges and final order of removal by an immigration judge .
“ U.S .
Immigration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ present aliens for arrest based on advocacy positions they hold or in retaliation for critical comments they make , ” she said .
“ Any suggestion to the contrary is irresponsible , speculative , and inaccurate.
” Shaken , traumatized , and worried about what would happen to his family if he continued to antagonize ICE , Montrevil decided to take Shanahan ’ s suggestion and step back from his activism .
He stopped giving interviews and focused on his business , his church , and his family .
Seven years went by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with ICE without incident .
, President Donald Trump was elected on campaign promises to get tough on immigrants .
Montrevil decided to take part in one of the New Sanctuary Coalition ’ s prayerful demonstrations outside the local ICE headquarters .
At his next check-in , Montrevil was detained , fingerprinted , and asked to turn over his property .
Bardavid , his lawyer , showed ICE officials a paper receipt demonstrating that Montrevil still had a motion pending with the Board of Immigration Appeals , but ICE insisted that it had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its system .
And then , as suddenly as his check-in had escalated , Montrevil was released without explanation .
“ They just told me it had come from ‘ upstairs , ’ ” Montrevil said .
“ I think they were trying to scare me.
” Montrevil was given another check-in date on January 16 , 2018 , but ICE never intended for him to keep it .
Sworn statements by ICE officials in Ragbir ’ s case later revealed that they had begun planning Montrevil ’ s and Ragbir ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ denied it , ICE officials later admitted that they put Montrevil , Ragbir , and the offices of the New Sanctuary Coalition under secret surveillance .
On January 3 , plainclothes ICE officers — who evidently knew that Montrevil regularly returned home on his lunch break — arrested him near his house in the Far Rockaway area of Queens as he was returning to his car .
Montrevil was taken to the local ICE office at 26 Federal Plaza in Lower Manhattan “ One of the guys said to me in the car @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we have Trump as president now ?
He doesn ’ t like immigrants , ’ ” Montrevil said .
“ I kept telling them I have a motion pending .
They said , ‘ Anything you have pending , it ’ s been revoked.
” At the ICE office , Montrevil repeatedly asked to speak with his lawyer but was told that his lawyer wasn ’ t in the building .
In fact , Bardavid was in the building , but was being told that he couldn ’ t meet with his client @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New Jersey but kept Bardavid in the dark at 26 Federal Plaza all afternoon , telling him that he could meet his client the next day .
Bardavid finally spoke with Scott Mechkowski , then the deputy director of ICE ’ s New York Field Office , on January 5 .
“ We war-gamed this over and over , ” Bardavid recalled Mechkowski telling him , of Montrevil ’ s detention .
What Mechkowski didn ’ t initially tell Bardavid was that ICE was moving his client that very day to the Krome @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s outstanding paperwork was resolved over the long holiday weekend of Martin Luther King Jr. Day .
By the time court opened at 8 a.m. the following Tuesday to consider Bardavid ’ s emergency petition , Montrevil was on a plane to Haiti that had taken off at 7:38 a.m. “ ICE planned and executed Jean ’ s removal in a way that would prevent him from accessing counsel and the courts , ” Bardavid concludes , in a sworn declaration attached to today ’ s lawsuit .
Montrevil ’ s advocates in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rosen , students in New York University Law School ’ s immigration law clinic , said the legal and civic issues at question in Montrevil ’ s case are critical .
There are dozens of other documented instances around the country of immigration activists being targeted for deportation .
“ This is an ongoing harm , and ICE clearly feels they can act with impunity to silence their critics , ” Rosen said .
“ In deporting Jean the way they did , ICE sought to send a chilling message to immigrants who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What ’ s at stake with this case is really whether they ’ re successful in that or not.
” For Montrevil and his family , there are more personal stakes as well .
Montrevil said he is having a tough time in Haiti , a country he left as a boy , where conditions are deteriorating rapidly .
His oldest child with Cauthen , Jahsiah , is now 16 and a junior at the prestigious Brooklyn Technical High School , but since his father ’ s deportation , he has been struggling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Montrevil ’ s daughter , Jamya , said she talks to her father each day over WhatsApp , when Haiti ’ s unreliable communications infrastructure permit , but that it ’ s not the same as having him present in her life .
“ I thought he was going to come back , but he never actually did , ” she said .
“ I wish people understood : When you deport someone , it doesn ’ t only affect one person , it affects their families too.
” Correction : January @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This story has been updated to reflect that Jean Montrevil was released from prison in 2000 on probation , not parole , and that ICE ’ s Scott Mechkowski initially withheld information about Montrevil ’ s transfer to a detention center in Florida from his lawyer .

A New York City immigration rights activist who was deported by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in 2018 filed a lawsuit in federal court in Brooklyn on Thursday morning, alleging that he was targeted for deportation because of his political speech. Jean Montrevil said his removal from the U.S. was in violation of his First Amendment rights and demanded that the government return him to his home in New York from Haiti.
The suit brought by Montrevil, 51, a founding member of the New Sanctuary Coalition of New York City, builds on a significant ruling last spring by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of a former colleague, activist Ravi Ragbir. In Ragbir’s case, the court found that ICE’s moves against Ragbir in early 2018 were intended as retaliation for Ragbir’s political speech and thus, violated his rights under the First Amendment.
“It’s only once he began speaking out as an activist that his real problems with ICE began.”
Ragbir’s suit revolved around surveillance, intimidation, and an attempted deportation foiled only by an emergency court order, all in January 2018. Montrevil’s record of being threatened for his activism goes back further, stretching over a decade. And while Ragbir was able to narrowly escape deportation, Montrevil was not — in large part, he alleges, because of an elaborate and carefully planned conspiracy of official lies and misconduct that deprived him of access to courts, his lawyer, and his due-process rights just long enough to get him on a plane out of the country.
“Since 2005, Jean was, like nearly a million other people, living under an order of supervision, which allowed him to live in the U.S. with authorization,” said Lauren Wilfong, one of the advocates representing Montrevil. “It’s only once he began speaking out as an activist that his real problems with ICE began.”
Montrevil’s friends and family describe the trajectory of his life as precisely the sort of story of redemption and growth that is demanded of people convicted of crimes. They say his adult life was characterized by the industry, community building, and love that this country valorizes in its immigrants. In their eyes, Montrevil’s deportation is a double-jeopardy punishment for youthful crimes he long since served time for. Even more troublingly, it is punishment for daring to raise his voice to call attention to the violence and injustice of America’s immigration enforcement apparatus. Montrevil’s lawsuit is seeking to make the court recognize what seems plain to many who have followed his case: that his deportation was, at its essence, political — the literal banishment of a dissident who challenged the government too often and too loudly.
Montrevil came to New York legally in 1986, at the age of 17, when his father, a former Haitian military official living in Brooklyn, obtained a green card for him. For Montrevil, who had grown up fending for himself in Port-au-Prince, the transition to living under the stern authority of his father was difficult. “It was a bit of a shock,” Montrevil told The Intercept from Port-au-Prince. “He was very tough, you know, ex-military. It was hard for me to get along with him. Looking back, I blame myself for not listening.”
Montrevil ran away from home and, in his telling, fell in with the wrong crowd. Over a two-year period, he racked up convictions for drug possession with intent to distribute in Virginia, a gun possession misdemeanor in New York, and a federal drug possession conviction in New Jersey. In jail awaiting trial on his Virginia charges, Montrevil got in a fight, leading to further charges. In 1989, with the war on drugs in high gear, mandatory-minimum sentences dictated meting out lengthy prison stays. At the age of 21, Montrevil was staring down a 30-year sentence. As a legal permanent resident, his convictions also made him deportable.
When he was released on probation in 2000, Montrevil was 32 and determined to lead a different life. He took up management of a religious goods shop in Flatbush, Brooklyn. He met Jani Cauthen, a public-school aide, and they got married and had children. He scrupulously kept to the terms of his probation and checked in regularly for his scheduled appointments with immigration authorities. He volunteered with HIV patients through his church. And he began working with Families for Freedom, an organization that offers support to detained immigrants and their families.
Juan Carlos Ruiz, a Lutheran minister and immigration activist, met Montrevil through his work with Families for Freedom, and invited him in 2006 to help found what would become the New Sanctuary Coalition of New York City. Where Families for Freedom focuses its work on serving people caught up in the machinery of deportation, the New Sanctuary Coalition would be more outward-facing, more political, and more high-profile. “Jean didn’t let his fears stop him, but of course, he was concerned about the risks of becoming a public face of the movement,” Ruiz said.
Those concerns proved well-founded. As Montrevil’s new role put him in the media spotlight, ICE responded with what he took to be retaliation. Within a year, the agency enrolled him in the Intensive Supervision Appearance Program, or ISAP, which was more ordinarily reserved for people who had failed to keep their scheduled check-ins or were otherwise considered a flight risk. Montrevil was required to wear an ankle monitor, check in with ICE three times a week, and keep a curfew of 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. Though most people at the time were placed on ISAP for short periods of time, Montrevil was kept on the program for nearly a year. The curfew crippled his new business, using a van to drive customers to airports or visit relatives upstate. The electronic shackle irritated his skin, leaving scars that he still wears today.
ICE was definitely aware of his political activism, Montrevil said. At a check-in in December 2009, as he was taken into custody as a prelude to deportation, an ICE officer referred to his media profile, calling Montrevil the “one complaining to the Village Voice.” As Montrevil waited in a Pennsylvania prison, his family, church, and supporters rallied round him, flooding ICE’s New York Field Office phone lines and getting themselves arrested in noisy protests outside. “There’s no question in my mind that Jean was being targeted for speaking out,” the pastor of Montrevil’s church, Rev. Donna Schaper, said.
Montrevil was ultimately released, but he was given a stern warning from high up. In an unusual step, Christopher Shanahan, then the director of ICE’s New York City Field Office, met with Montrevil, Schaper, and Montrevil’s lawyer, Joshua Bardavid. “This can’t happen again,” Shanahan said, according to Schaper. If Montrevil would agree to lay low, Schaper said Shanahan told them, he wouldn’t have any more problems. Montrevil said that Shanahan even told him that if he kept his head down, the ICE New York director would himself look into getting Montrevil deferred-action status, giving him lasting protection from deportation.
Read Our Complete Coverage The War on Immigrants
The Intercept could not reach Shanahan for comment by the time of publication. Rachael Yong Yow, a spokesperson for the ICE division that encompasses New York City, denied that Montrevil was targeted because of his activism, citing his convictions on multiple felony charges and final order of removal by an immigration judge. “U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement does not target unlawfully present aliens for arrest based on advocacy positions they hold or in retaliation for critical comments they make,” she said. “Any suggestion to the contrary is irresponsible, speculative, and inaccurate.”
Shaken, traumatized, and worried about what would happen to his family if he continued to antagonize ICE, Montrevil decided to take Shanahan’s suggestion and step back from his activism. He stopped giving interviews and focused on his business, his church, and his family. Seven years went by, and Montrevil kept his periodic appointments with ICE without incident.
In 2017 , President Donald Trump was elected on campaign promises to get tough on immigrants. Montrevil decided to take part in one of the New Sanctuary Coalition’s prayerful demonstrations outside the local ICE headquarters. At his next check-in, Montrevil was detained, fingerprinted, and asked to turn over his property. Bardavid, his lawyer, showed ICE officials a paper receipt demonstrating that Montrevil still had a motion pending with the Board of Immigration Appeals, but ICE insisted that it had no records of any open proceedings in its system. And then, as suddenly as his check-in had escalated, Montrevil was released without explanation. “They just told me it had come from ‘upstairs,’” Montrevil said. “I think they were trying to scare me.”
“One of the guys said to me in the car, ‘Don’t you know we have Trump as president now? He doesn’t like immigrants.'”
Montrevil was given another check-in date on January 16, 2018, but ICE never intended for him to keep it. Sworn statements by ICE officials in Ragbir’s case later revealed that they had begun planning Montrevil’s and Ragbir’s deportations in October. Though they initially denied it, ICE officials later admitted that they put Montrevil, Ragbir, and the offices of the New Sanctuary Coalition under secret surveillance.
On January 3, plainclothes ICE officers — who evidently knew that Montrevil regularly returned home on his lunch break — arrested him near his house in the Far Rockaway area of Queens as he was returning to his car. Montrevil was taken to the local ICE office at 26 Federal Plaza in Lower Manhattan
“One of the guys said to me in the car, ‘Don’t you know we have Trump as president now? He doesn’t like immigrants,’” Montrevil said. “I kept telling them I have a motion pending. They said, ‘Anything you have pending, it’s been revoked.”
At the ICE office, Montrevil repeatedly asked to speak with his lawyer but was told that his lawyer wasn’t in the building. In fact, Bardavid was in the building, but was being told that he couldn’t meet with his client. ICE moved Montrevil to detention in New Jersey but kept Bardavid in the dark at 26 Federal Plaza all afternoon, telling him that he could meet his client the next day.
Bardavid finally spoke with Scott Mechkowski, then the deputy director of ICE’s New York Field Office, on January 5. “We war-gamed this over and over,” Bardavid recalled Mechkowski telling him, of Montrevil’s detention. What Mechkowski didn’t initially tell Bardavid was that ICE was moving his client that very day to the Krome Detention Facility in Florida. Montrevil’s outstanding paperwork was resolved over the long holiday weekend of Martin Luther King Jr. Day. By the time court opened at 8 a.m. the following Tuesday to consider Bardavid’s emergency petition, Montrevil was on a plane to Haiti that had taken off at 7:38 a.m.
“ICE planned and executed Jean’s removal in a way that would prevent him from accessing counsel and the courts,” Bardavid concludes, in a sworn declaration attached to today’s lawsuit.
Montrevil’s advocates in his new lawsuit, Wilfong and Diana Rosen, students in New York University Law School’s immigration law clinic, said the legal and civic issues at question in Montrevil’s case are critical. There are dozens of other documented instances around the country of immigration activists being targeted for deportation. “This is an ongoing harm, and ICE clearly feels they can act with impunity to silence their critics,” Rosen said. “In deporting Jean the way they did, ICE sought to send a chilling message to immigrants who might exercise their First Amendment rights. What’s at stake with this case is really whether they’re successful in that or not.”
For Montrevil and his family, there are more personal stakes as well. Montrevil said he is having a tough time in Haiti, a country he left as a boy, where conditions are deteriorating rapidly. His oldest child with Cauthen, Jahsiah, is now 16 and a junior at the prestigious Brooklyn Technical High School, but since his father’s deportation, he has been struggling and the family is worried about him. Montrevil’s daughter, Jamya, said she talks to her father each day over WhatsApp, when Haiti’s unreliable communications infrastructure permit, but that it’s not the same as having him present in her life. “I thought he was going to come back, but he never actually did,” she said. “I wish people understood: When you deport someone, it doesn’t only affect one person, it affects their families too.”
Correction: January 16, 2020, 1:06 p.m.
This story has been updated to reflect that Jean Montrevil was released from prison in 2000 on probation, not parole, and that ICE’s Scott Mechkowski initially withheld information about Montrevil’s transfer to a detention center in Florida from his lawyer.