Mediaboss Marketing

Amid the collapse of a signature piece of Republicanhealth care legislation and continued revelations about the Trump teams ties to Russia, House Democrats have turned their spotlight on proposals to revamp ethics, campaign finance and voting rights laws.

Were fighting back against the lack of accountability that we see in the Trump administration and from special interests, said Maryland Rep.John Sarbanes, who chairs his partys Democracy Reform Task Force.

The president said he was going to do it, he said he was going to drain the swamp, that he was going to bring accountability to Washington hes done absolutely the opposite, Sarbanes said. He suffers and his administration appears to suffer from ethical blindness when it comes to recognizing conflicts of interest rules and basic ethical standards.

House Minority LeaderNancy Pelosiand Sarbanes told reporters during a Tuesday news conference that their party was developing a series of legislative proposals they dubbed the By the People Project that would include updates to the nations ethics and elections systems.

Some of the measures, such as one to encourage small-dollar campaign donations and another to require additional public disclosures of political spending, have already been introduced.

Those bills are unlikely to move in the GOP-controlled Congress but will provide messaging for Democrats over the August recess and on the campaign trail into next year. Lawmakers are crafting other parts of the agenda, such as the overhaul of ethics laws. Sarbanes said they will work with colleagues on the committees of jurisdiction.

This has got to be an important part of the Democratic message as we move forward, hesaid.

The proposals are the latest in congressional Democratsmonths-long resistance effortaimed at putting a focus on President Donald Trumps potential conflicts of interest and ethical woes.

Their goal is two-fold: weaken the White Houses agenda by pointing to the presidents persistent controversies over his business ties and the Russia probe and to try to link Republicans in Congress to those matters.

Members of the minority party have already used their limited procedural tools, such as resolutions of inquiry, to attempt to force the Trump administration to release documents related to the Russia probe as well as the presidents personal tax returns. Republicans have voted down those measures.

Democrats on the Hill have also offered unsuccessful amendments to the annual appropriations bills, and they have penned numerous letters to ethics officials asking for clarifications of the rules.

Outside government watchdogs have also buoyed the effort. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Government, or CREW, brought a lawsuit in the first days of the Trump administration, alleging that the president was in violation of the Constitutions Emoluments Clause by maintaining ownership of his hotels where foreign dignitaries sometimes stay.

CREW this week announced that it would make public the guest lists of Trumps private Florida club, Mar-a-Lago, after a judge ruled that the administration must provide the list to the group.

House Democrats also blasted the administrationsAdvisory Commission on Election Integrity.

Rep.Pramila Jayapalof Washington called it a sham commission intended to make it harder for Americans to vote. She noted alettersent Tuesday from Maryland Rep.Elijah E. Cummingsand other Democrats calling on Vice President Mike Pence to ask for the resignation of Kris Kobach, theKansas secretary of state who serves as vice chairman of the commission, and to rescind Kobachs request for voter information.

Though Democrats say they believe the commission aims to suppress votes especially in minority districts, supporters of the election commission, including the conservative-leaning Public Interest Legal Foundation, argue that the effort would help rid election systems of fraud and voting irregularities.

Meanwhile, a collection of campaign finance and liberal groups, including Common Cause and Every Voice, held a demonstration on Tuesday outside the Justice Department calling for an investigation of possible election law violations.

Common Cause last week filed complaints with the Justice Department and the Federal Election Commission alleging thatthe presidents son Donald Trump Jr. illegally solicited a political contribution from a foreign national by meeting with a Russian operative reportedly to obtain information damaging to Hillary Clinton's campaign.

Our nation is under attack from Russia and our leaders are making excuses and defending the attacker, said Karen Hobert Flynn, president of Common Cause. Its time for the people to hold these politicians accountable.

Get breaking news alerts and more from Roll Call on your iPhone or your Android.

Read this article:
House Democrats Focus on Ethics, Political Money - Roll Call

El Paso Catholic Diocese signs letter asking for immigration reform

Bishop Mark Seitz, with the support of the El Paso Diocese, signed a pastoral letter today citing the need for immigration reform. He hopes those in our community will read his letter before reaching a decision about immigration law.

There should be a bridge and not a big wall between church and state, Seitz said.

For the Catholic Diocese in El Paso, the issue of immigration is not just political, but spiritual.

Begin with the teaching of Jesus. Begin with his call to love the poor. Begin with the call to respect the dignity of every human being and to recognize God is at work, Seitz said.

Some El Pasoans feel there can be positive outcomes when the church crosses the line into politics.

I think if they can do something good for the community, then by all means. If it's allowed and they have the resources to help, then use it for the greater good of the community, Amy Arrieta said.

Others aren't convinced about church activism.

I think that on a lot of issues they can collaborate together, but I think there are some that they have their separate issues that they need to deal with, Alexia Jauregui said.

Rosa Mercado, who was brought to the United States as a child, hopes the bishop's signature will bring about positive change.

I really hope and pray to God every day that this will help a lot of our community, Mercado said.

As part of the letter, Bishop Seitz is starting a new scholarship fund for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals recipients.

Here is a link to the full pastoral letter by Bishop Seitz.

Go here to read the rest:
El Paso Catholic Diocese signs letter asking for immigration reform - KFOX El Paso

Shortly before its summer recess, the U. S.Supreme Court unanimously issued a pair of concurrent rulings concerning the right of freedom of speech under the First Amendment. Although neither arose in Minnesota, the pair are of particular interest and importance here.

MinnPost photo by Jana Freiband

Marshall H. Tanick

Both cases were significant, as are nearly all opinions of the high court, since the tribunal hears and decides only about 70 cases a year, less than 1 percent of the civil and criminal lawsuits it is requested to adjudicate annually. One of these rulings deservedly got ample public glare, perhaps even more than merited, while the other received much less attention than it warranted.

The former, Matal v. Tam[PDF], struck down a provision of the federal trademark law forbidding registration of any disparaging name or markthat reflects "contempt or disrepute" for an individual, group, or organization. The challenge was brought by an Asian-American rock musicband known as "Slants," a reference to the derogatory phrase "slant-eyes" for Asian-Americans, after the Trademark and Patent Office refused to accept its name for legally protected intellectual property. The justices, in a ruling written by Justice Samuel Alito, reasoned that the proscription constitutes impermissible "viewpoint" censorship.

The ruling garnered lots of attention and accompanying acclaim because of its popular-culture subject matter. But it also was noteworthybecause of its seemingly fatal implication for the Trademark Office's declination of the nickname "Redskins" for the professional football team representing the nation's capital. The high court refused last fall to review that rulingat the same time as it took on the "Slants" case, but theoutcome in the rock-band case maydoom the decisiondisallowing the "Redskins" appellation.

That issue has particular resonance here.A number of leaders of the Native American community, along with many supporters, have vigorously opposed use of nicknames by sports teams they deem to denigrate them, although there are questions regarding the breadth of that aversion among rank-and-file Native Americans. As a result, school boards throughout the state have removed and replaced offensive Native American-related appellations from their squads, which has also occurred in other jurisdictions and at both public and private educational institutions.

Additionally, the Native American objectors, represented by a Minneapolis law firm, obtained the ruling from the Trademark office canceling the trademark of the "Redskins" name and logo, although that determination now is of dubious validity in light of the outcome of the "Slants" suit.

The contretemps has not been lost on the media, including some in Minnesota, that have struggled for years over how to report the names of athletic teams that have versions of Native American nicknames, particularly professional baseball and football teams.

The other high court free-speech decision, though, may have even more widespread significance. The case, Packingham v. NorthCarolina, concerned a state law that barred registered sex offenders from using any social media that is accessible to children. The Supreme Court, as in the "Slants" case, invalidated the measure as an unlawful restriction on freedom of expression.

In so doing, the decision authoredby JusticeAnthony Kennedy noted the ever-increasing and "protean" nature of the internet, pointing out that the number of Facebook users is thrice the population of the North American continent. Recognizing these features, the ruling equates the internet with traditional expressive forums like parks and other public places where freedom of speech is allowed to be largely untrammeled. That portion of the decision is suggestive that restraints on internet communications must besparse or virtually nonexistent to pass constitutional muster.

The implication drew some concern fromthree members of the court, led by Justice Joseph Alito, who has emerged as one of the strongest First Amendment defenders on the high court, which has taken on what Harvard Law School professor Noah Feldman describes as a "free speech absolutism" hue. Alito's centrality to this approach was exemplified by a solitary dissent he authored a few years ago supporting the right of anti-gay-rights extremists to protest vocally at military burial services in objection to the expansion of gays and lesbians in the armed services.

Although Alito and the other two, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas, voted with the majority, they joined in a concurring opinion that lamented the far-reaching implications of the decision that would seem to bar any efforts to restrict social media communications by criminal offenders.

It remains to be seen how the ruling will affect conditions imposed on them or, for that matter, commonly accepted limitations on use of social media to engage in offensive or harassingcommunications. These types of restrictions are frequently resorted to by judges in Minnesota, and elsewhere in sentencing of criminal wrongdoers, including sex offenders, as well as inmarital disputes and other inter-personal spats.

The unanimity of these two freedom-of-speech decisions by the Supreme Court reflects their broad acceptanceacross the ideological spectrum. But they also are likely to be heard from again as these rulingsand their underlying reasonings play out inthe courts in Minnesota and around the country.

Marshall H. Tanick is aconstitutional lawattorney with theTwin Cities law firm of Hellmuth & Johnson.

WANT TO ADD YOUR VOICE?

If you're interested in joining the discussion, add your voice to the Comment section below or consider writinga letteror a longer-formCommunity Voicescommentary. (For more information about Community Voices, see our Submission Guidelines.)

Read more here:
First Amendment: Two recent Supreme Court decisions are of particular interest and importance in Minnesota - MinnPost

The Knight First Amendment Institute July 11 filed a lawsuit against President Donald Trump and his communication teams, claiming they are violating the Constitutions First Amendment by blocking people on Twitter.

The lawsuit was filed in the Southern District of New York on behalf of seven people who were blocked by the presidents @realdonaldtrump account because they criticized the president or his policies on the social media, the institute said in a news release.

The suit hopes to have the court determine that Trump and his teams actions constitute viewpoint-based blocking and is unconstitutional.

President Trumps Twitter account has become an important source of news and information about the government, and an important forum for speech by, to, or about the president, Jameel Jaffer, the Knight Institutes executive director, said in a statement. The First Amendment applies to this digital forum in the same way it applies to town halls and open school board meetings. The White House acts unlawfully when it excludes people from this forum simply because theyve disagreed with the president.

About a month prior to the lawsuit being filed, the institute wrote a letter to the White House suggesting it would file suit if the president didnt unblock the individuals.

The institute, which never received a response from the White House, said that the Trump administration has promoted the @realdonaldtrump account as a primary communication channel between the president and the public including making formal announcements thus constituting it as a public forum protected by the First Amendment.

The blocking prevents or impedes these people from reading the presidents tweets, responding directly, or participating in the discussions that take place in the comment threads generated by the presidents tweets, the institutes release said. The complaint argues that the @realDonaldTrump account is a public forum under the First Amendment, meaning that the government cannot exclude people from it simply because of their views, it added.

The lawsuit also contends that the White House is violating the seven individual plaintiffs First Amendment right to petition their government for redress of grievances.

The White House is transforming a public forum into an echo chamber, said Katie Fallow, a senior staff attorney at the Knight Institute, in a statement. Its actions violate the rights of the people whove been blocked and the rights of those who havent been blocked but who now participate in a forum thats being sanitized of dissent.

Prior to joining the Knight Institute as executive director in June 2016, Jaffer was deputy legal director at the American Civil Liberties Union and director of the ACLUs Center for Democracy.

Born in Canada to Ismaili Muslim parents originally from Tanzania, he is a graduate of Williams College, Cambridge University, and Harvard Law School.

Read the original here:
Knight First Amendment Institute Files Lawsuit Against Trump for Blocking Twitter Users - India West

Hillary Clinton is even less popular now than when she was running for president.

Just 39 percent of Americans view Clinton favorably, according to a Bloomberg national poll conducted last week and released on Monday. A year ago, when Clinton was the presumptive Democratic nominee, her favorability was at 43 percent. The former secretary of state is viewed slightly more negatively than President Donald Trump, who has historically low poll numbers for a president this early in his administration.

That puts Clinton at odds with every losing presidential candidate since 1992. Except for Clinton, the defeated candidate saw an increase in favorability ratings after Election Day, according to Gallup data.

The Bloomberg poll didnt get into reasons for Clintons decline in favorability. But there is, of course, one thing that sets her apart from the pack of failed candidates: Clinton is a woman.

In follow-up interviews, Bloomberg poll respondents said their negative feelings about Clinton had nothing to do with her loss. Instead, they emphasized how unlikable they consider Clinton echoing the opinions of many voters during the 2016 campaign.

She did not feel authentic or genuine to me, Chris Leininger, 29, an insurance agent from Fountain Valley, California, told Bloomberg. She was hard to like.

Thats neither an unusual nor a surprising sentiment. Women with strong ambitions and opinions typically take a likability hit, Colleen Ammerman, director of Harvard Business Schools Gender Initiative, told HuffPost.

A mountain of research on women leaders has found that the idea of a powerful woman runs counter to most peoples expectations for whats considered feminine quiet, supportive, nurturing and definitely not ambitious.

The disconnect puts female leaders in whats known as the double-bind strong bosses are penalized for not acting like women, and those who lean the other way and try to display more characteristically feminine traits are penalized for being weak leaders.

Clintons probably the best-known example of this phenomenon. Shes been criticized for being too loud, but also for smiling too much.

In the past, Clintons favorability ratings tended to go up when she was not actively running for office. In December 2012, when she was secretary of state, 70 percent of Americans viewed Clinton positively,according to Bloomberg.

But since her loss in November, Clinton has stayed in the public eye and has continued to voice her opinions. Thats likely stoked anxiety and discomfort among Americans, Ammerman said.

Clinton opened up about why she thinks she lost to Trump in an interview in April with New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, and again in May in an interview with CNNs Christiane Amanpour at a conference.

Clinton said she took personal responsibility for her defeat, but also cited the last-minute announcement from then-FBI Director James Comey of a reopened investigation into her emails as a decisive factor in Trumps victory. Shes not the only one whos cited Comeys letter as a potent October surprise leading to her loss.

Yet the comments were met with rage and disbelief from certain corners, writes Rebecca Traister in New York magazine.

Heres how Gersh Kuntzman put it in the Daily News: Hey, Hillary Clinton, shut the f up and go away already.

New York Times politics reporter Glenn Thrush tweeted mea culpa-not so much. Countless others rage-tweeted at Clinton the audacity of her trying to analyze her loss.

Ammerman said there was an element of gendered backlash in the response. Clintons willingness to be vocal about being ambitious and wanting to win did little to endear her to the Americans already uncomfortable with a woman audacious enough to want to be president.

Its hard not to see the sexism in the response, though certainly many of these men arent aware of it. The idea that she shouldnt mention the Comey letter when the entire nation and the most respected statisticians are considering its impact is so strange, Amanpour told Traister later. If she were a man, would she be allowed to mention it? As a woman, I am offended by the double standards applied here. Everyone shrieks that Hillary was a bad candidate, but was Trump a good candidate?

You could argue that we live in a highly polarized time, and perhaps thats why public opinion has not bounced back in Clintons favor. But other Democrats havent taken a popularity hit. In fact, former President Barack Obama and Vice President Biden have both seen their favorability ratings rise since November in Bloombergs polling.

Most losing presidential candidates have an easier time and a more generous reception from the public. Former Massachusetts Gov.Mitt Romney, who largely disappeared from view after he lost the 2012 presidential election, saw a 4-point increase in favorability after his defeat. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz) stayed in the public eye as a senator after his presidential loss in 2008, and his numbers shot up significantly. Before the election, 50 percent of Americans viewed him favorably. After he lost to Obama, McCains favorability rose to 64 percent.

To be sure, none of those men lost to Trump, an inexperienced and incompetent political leader feared and disliked by a bipartisan array of people. And, as Traister pointed out, its easy and natural to blame the whole Trump thing on Clinton, rather than to dissect the myriad other reasons for his rise.

Its painful to re-litigate the election for a lot of people though Trump certainly keeps trying and maybe that contributes to the feeling of wanting Clinton to just disappear.

Having lived through the 2000 election, I dont remember this level of vitriol and blame leveled at Al Gore arguably as stiff and awkward a presidential candidate as Clinton. Indeed, just seven years after his loss to George W. Bush at a time when the country was struggling under that administration Gore won a Nobel Peace Prize.

Theres more to the Clinton negativity than Trump backlash, as this Bloomberg poll makes clear.

One poll respondent, 46-year-old Robert Taylor, voted for Clinton and said in a followup interview that he doesnt blame her for Trump.

I think my negativity about her would be there whether Trump was elected or not, he said.

The Bloomberg poll was conducted by Selzer & Co. It surveyed 1,001 adults from July 8 to July 12, using live interviewers to reach both landlines and cellphones.

Read the original:
Why Hillary Clinton Is Really Unpopular Again - HuffPost