Mediaboss Marketing

The Utah Republican Party earlier had pushed instead the idea of runoff elections to help ensure a majority winner in crowded-field primary elections. But it reversed course saying that solution would be too expensive and take too much time.

Its reversal also came as the party reneged on a deal last weekend. It had pledged to drop its legal challenges of a new election law if the Legislature would pass a runoff election bill. As that bill was moving forward, the party changed its mind and said it would pursue its legal challenges anyway.

It was part of a fight over a new law, called SB54, allowing candidates to qualify for the primary by gathering signatures or through the traditional caucus-convention system.

A possible consequence of SB54 are primary races with multiple candidates, raising the prospect of a winner securing the party nomination with a small percentage of the votes.

Chavez-Houck noted in debate that the Utah Republican Party has already used ranked choice voting in its state conventions. She said it could help voters feel that their votes truly count, even if perhaps they know their top choice may not win.

Sen. Curt Bramble, R-Provo, author of the controversial SB54 who had pushed a runoff election bill at the request of the GOP only to drop it after it broke its deal, has predicted the instant runoff bill has little chance of passage in the Senate.

"There is very little, if any, appetite to pursue instant runoff voting," he said earlier this week. Meanwhile, the House defeated another controversial election provision on Friday.

It voted 26-45 to kill HB314, which would have required that mail-in ballots arrive at a county clerk's office on or before Election Day. Critics argued that it would have prevented about 57,000 votes from counting in last November's election.

Current rules require only that a by-mail ballot be postmarked the day before an election.

Later in the day, that bill was resurrected. The House removed the controversial portion about the mailing deadlines, and passed remaining provisions to require Election Day drop boxes for ballots. The watered-down version passed 64-9.

More here:
After unusual Republican Party support, Democrat passes election-reform bill - Salt Lake Tribune

Resistance to President Donald Trump is cropping up in the most unlikeliest of places: the House GOP caucus.

At least four Republican lawmakers in the House of Representatives, some of whom havebeen questioned, booed and heckled at recent town halls by their constituents, publicly called for Trump to release his tax returns in order to review for any potential conflicts of interest that pose a national security risk or violate the Constitution.

Its something I feel very, very strongly about, Republican South Carolina Rep. Mark Sanford told RollCall this week. Sanford, along with North Carolina Republican Walter Jones signed a letter from New Jersey Democrat Bill Pascrell calling onthe chairmen of the House Ways and Means Committee and Senate Finance Committee to compel the United States Treasury Department to release Trumps tax returns for congressional review.

Disclosure would serve the public interest of clarifying President Trumps conflicts of interest in office, the potential for him to personally benefit from tax reform, and ensure that he is not receiving any preferential treatment from the IRS, the letter stated. We believe the powerful and respected Committees on Finance and Ways and Means have the responsibility to ensure oversight of the executive branch by requesting a review of President Trumps tax returns and moving toward a formal release of these documents to the public

The letter has been signed by more than 140 Democrats in the House.

Ultimately, it isnt about Trumps tax returns. Its about the continuation of a policy thats been in place for 50 years by virtue of tradition. What happens at the federal level has real implications at the state and local level, Sanford said.

Sanford was one of several House Republicans, including House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz, who calledon Trump to release his tax returns during the presidential campaign. Sanford even sent a letter in late January to Trumps chief of staff, Reince Priebus, on the matter.

Trump defied a more than four-decade-old bipartisan tradition of presidential candidates releasing their tax returns, insisting that he cannot do so while under audit.He has said that the public doesnt care at all about his returns.

But asked, Will you call for the release of President Trumps income tax records? by aregistered Republican at a Pensacola town hall late last month, freshman Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida folded and responded: Absolutely.

Iowa Republican Rep.David Young echoed his Republican colleague at his own recent town hall.You run for president, youre president, you should release your tax returns. Its a distraction and I think the American people should know, the congressmantold a town hall last week, calling the decision a no-brainer.

A poll released during last years presidential campaign found that 64 percent of Republican voters wanted Trump to release his tax returns.

Earlier this week Pascrelltried to get House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady, R-TX, and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orin Hatch, R-Utah, to use their jurisdictional authority to push Trump to release his taxes. Pascrell forced a vote on the floor of the House on the issue, but every Republican including Gaetz and Young unanimously rejected the motion. Sanford and Jones, who have taken the most concrete steps to force Trumps hand on tax returns, voted present.

Jones said in an interview with RollCall that Americans need to know about their presidents taxes.

We are not going to be turned back, Pascrell said after his bill failed to gain traction with more Republicans.We have several paths.

Democratic members in the Senate are nowpushing for the returnsunder thesame 1924 law that Pascrell unsuccessfully invoked in the House.Under the law, chairmen of the Congressional tax-writing committees are authorized to confidentially review anyones return including the presidents without that persons consent if they have cause for concern.

Im just watching these Republicans speaking out in the House like Mark Sanford,Senator Ron Wyden from Oregon, the leading Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, told RollCall. Wyden recently introduced a bill that wouldrequire presidents and presidential nominees to release their three most recent tax returns.If they dont, Wydens bill would authorize the Treasury to do it for them. The measure has 19 co-sponsors, all Democrats, but so far no action has been taken.

Democrats have saidTrumps tax returns are needed to examine potential financial links to Russian investors in light of Russias interference in last years elections. They also contend the tax returns could help determine whether Trump has conflicts of interests when he takes positions on legislation such as tax proposals.

But Republican committee chairmen Brady and Hatch said in a letter to Wyden that there was no specific allegations of tax-related misconduct against Trump. As a result, they wrote, we strongly believe it would be inappropriate for us to use this authority to access and release the presidents tax returns.

Unlike Republicans in the House, Senate Republicans have surprisingly stuck by Trump and his right to shield his tax returns more than their colleagues in the House. Only Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina has somewhat spoken against Trumps position, telling RollCall this week thatany candidate running in 2020 needs to release their tax returns.

See the rest here:
House GOP begin to turn on Trump: Republicans break from party to demand president's tax returns - Salon

No matter what they may say, politicians dont always welcome their constituents views.

Wisconsin Republican Sen. Ron Johnsons office recently threatened police action against a constituent if he did not cease and desist calling to criticizeDonald Trump.

This letter acts as written notice of our expectation for you to discontinue your unwarranted telephone calls and office visits, wrote Johnsons staff on Senate stationery in a letter dated Feb. 17. The senators staff said they would report the 72-year-old Milwaukee man, Earl Good, to the Capitol Police if he failed to comply with the letter. And in a follow-up statement to a local CBS station, the senators spokesman said Good had crosse[d] the bounds of decency.

Johnsons office did not answer repeated phone calls and emails asking for examples of such behavior.

After interviewing Good and progressive activists in Wisconsin who have interacted with him at various political events, it seems Good is only guilty of extreme persistence.

Good cops to it. Im sure Johnsons office thinks Im a pain in their ass or a nuisance, he told VICE News. His wife is a Trump supporter and agrees with them, he added ruefully.

The retired hospital lab director and Vietnam veteran, who served on the battleship U.S.S. Buck, started calling Johnsons offices in Wisconsin and Washington a few times a week after Trumps inauguration.

Good said he always called with a specific issue in mind, like Obamacare, gun background checks, or the defense budget. He also called to express his support for Trumps pick of General James Mattis for Secretary of Defense. There have been some times where I stated a position and the staffer laughed, he said. This is not a game; these calls are of my own volition.

Then suddenly he noticed that his calls began going straight to voicemail, especially when he was calling the D.C. office. All congressional office phones are equipped with caller ID.

Every time I got the voicemail, I would hang up, because I wanted to talk to somebody, he said. So he called. And called. And called. Sometimes a staffer would pick up and put him on hold until he hung up. One day, he had to call 83 times until a staffer picked up to talk to him.

He went to Johnsons Milwaukee office and asked to speak to a supervisor about Johnsons positions on certain issues. When he was told it would be a while, he said hed wait and asked if the staff could print out Johnsons press releases so he could study them in the meantime.

Since he received the letter last week, Good says he has so far complied and stopped calling the senators offices.

VICE News couldnt find any other examples of cease and desist letters being sent to constituents, but Republicans across both houses of Congress are struggling to respond to the barrage of phone calls into their offices since Congress came into session on Jan. 3.

Established progressive groups like Planned Parenthood and the American Federation of Teachers along with new Resistance startups like Daily Action and 5 Calls have together organized liberals to make over a million calls to members of Congress to protest various aspects of the Trump administration.

Every left-wing organization is calling my office, Rep. Pete Sessions of Texas told The Washington Post on Congress first day as Republicans considered changing ethics rules.

The phone calls only seem to have ramped up since. One Republican congressmens office increased the number of interns and staff members monitoring incoming phone calls from two to 10 in the last month, Politico Playbook reported.

While the Sergeant at Arms office said it does not provide statistics on incoming phone calls, Democratic Sen. Brian Schatz of Hawaii tweeted on Feb. 2:

Near the end of our interview, Good sheepishly admitted that one time he was so frustrated that he did indeed threaten Johnsons staff. If you hang up on me, he warned, Im going to call back.

More:
Cease and desist - VICE News

President Donald Trump's approach to democracy, conflicted at best, is settling into a familiar groove. Attacks on the news media, the scapegoating of vulnerable minorities and periodic assaults on the concept of truth, as well as on specific facts, have become hallmarks of his administration.

At the same time, democracy has gotten a few licks in as well. Trump obediently retreated from his Muslim ban at the direction of the courts, and his White House has been leaky, a boon to the free flow of information.

But it remains unclear whether the Republican Congress and other key U.S. institutions have the resiliency and will to repel Trump's attacks, including the continuing stonewalling on we-don't-know-what-exactly regarding Russia. (Trump's sudden aura of competence after his speech to Congress was undermined a day later by a well-timed leak on how Attorney General Jeff Sessions appeared to mislead the Senate under oath about his Russia contacts.)

The effect of Trump on societies with weaker democratic institutions is also unknown. But the very existence of a would-be authoritarian thrashing around the American government, forever threatening to break free of institutional constraints, sends a jarring message around the world.

The New York Times published a story on Wednesday about "anti-Soros" forces in Europe being emboldened by Trump's election. Substitute the word "democracy" for the name of the financier and open-society enthusiast George Soros, and the story still holds.

In Soros's native Hungary, the Trumpian prime minister, Viktor Orban, has for years been undermining democratic norms and institutions, badgering opponents and bludgeoning the independence of the news media. He is using this hour of authoritarian ascendance to step up his attacks on groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch as "foreign agents financed by foreign money."

Last week in Hungary, an Amnesty spokesman told EUObserver, "The government accused Amnesty of producing fake reports and of inciting migrants to break laws."

"Fake" reports and law-breaking immigrants. There's something vaguely familiar about those themes, isn't there? In a speech earlier this week, Orban said Hungary's economic success depends on the nation's "ethnic homogeneity."

Hungary's tide of "illiberal democracy" long preceded Trump's election. Orban's most recent reign atop Hungarian politics -- he's been there before -- began in 2010. "What we've seen is a weakening of democratic institutions around that part of the world for maybe a decade now," said Jan Surotchak, Europe director of the International Republican Institute, a Washington-based NGO that promotes democracy worldwide.

Kenneth Wollack, president of the National Democratic Institute, a kind of Washington doppelganger of Surotchak's IRI, has been in the business of promoting democracy worldwide for more than three decades. He isn't convinced that this U.S. president represents a democratic departure. "I think it's way too early for people to be making judgments," Wollack said in a telephone interview.

Wollack points out that concerns about President George W. Bush's commitment to global democracy movements -- as a candidate Bush had disparaged "nation-building" -- were quickly rendered moot after Bush launched full-scale wars under the banner of democracy.

Trump's evolution could similarly surprise. Democracy promotion, Wollack said, is now deeply woven into the fabric of international relations, especially for the U.S. "Every U.S. embassy around the world has democracy as part of its agenda," he said.

Incubating and sustaining democratic institutions is a tough task, however. Democracy doesn't always take. And it doesn't always thrive even when it does take. Hungary is one of many examples of democratic backsliding. Certainly the regime of Russia's Vladimir Putin qualifies.

Nowhere is democracy so firmly rooted as in the U.S., which has been a wellspring for democratic impulses around the world. Perhaps the confidence of Wollack and others is well-founded. But Trump represents a concussive break from a democratic pattern that has not only flourished in the U.S. but reverberated, to the benefit of Americans and others, around the world.

U.S. commitment to foreign engagement can vary with the demands and resources of the era. But questions about the U.S.'s commitment to its own democracy are something strange and new. Democrats around the world can't help but take note that the pillar of democracy has gone wobbly. Aspiring dictators have no doubt noticed, too.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

To contact the author of this story: Francis Wilkinson at fwilkinson1@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Katy Roberts at kroberts29@bloomberg.net

Go here to see the original:
Trump Could Undermine Democracy Outside the US - Bloomberg

Foxconn founder and chairman Terry Gou Tai-ming can move faster in Guangzhou than in the U.S.VCG VCG via Getty Images

Good morning.

My colleague Adam Lashinsky took issue with my declarative statement Monday that President Trump has "convinced U.S. businesses to shift their focus to creating jobs at home, rather than outsourcing them overseas." Trump's statements on this score, he points out, are clearly exaggerated, and the CEOs involved have no incentive to challenge his exaggerations. Moreover, the anecdotal information remains mixed.

My statement was based on multiple conversations with top executives, who say any added cost from "insourcing" is easily offset by potential gains from proposed tax cuts and regulatory relief. And their desire to avoid the President's Twitter attacks is very real. As a result, it seems clear to me there is some fire beneath the smoke.

But having said that, my visit to Guangzhou this week was a stark reminder of how difficult it will be for the U.S. to compete for global manufacturing facilities. Foxconn chairman Terry Gou was in Guangzhou at the same time, throwing the first shovels of dirt at a massive site east of this city where he is building an $8.8 billion new flat panel display screen factory . City officials proudly boasted that it took less than 100 days to clear residents from the site and get permission to begin construction. They expect the giant plant to be operating in just 18 months.

Meanwhile, Gou has been in talks to build a $7 billion plant in the U.S. for years. He mentioned Wednesday that he had recently been in Washington, but didn't elaborate.

"We are seeing Guangdong's efficiency. We are seeing Guangdong's charisma and drive," Gou said. "We feel that if any state governments in the U.S. want to attract Foxconn, they should come here to learn and study...to see how in such a short span of time...we can get so many things done." (Guangzhou is the capital of Guangdong province, the biggest of China's provinces in terms of population and GDP.)

The new industrial policy of the Trump administration may, at the margins, tip the balance of some decisions toward the U.S. But democracy, even under Trump, will remain messy. China's one-party rule will always have the edge in speed (if not always in efficiency). And that, in the end, may provide fuel to the arguments of U.S. protectionists.

Enjoy the weekend.

See the original post:
Democracy is a Roadblock to Trump's Plan to Bring Back Factory ... - Fortune